Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article critically analyzes the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) and its relationship with the widely recognized Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which guarantees and protects human rights for all regardless of gender, social and economic situations. Adopted by 45 Islamic states in 1990, the CDHRI is often portrayed as complementing the UDHR but is rooted in Sharia Law, leading to tensions between universal and cultural relativist perspectives on human rights. By using Saudi Arabia and Indonesia as case studies to illustrate the various manners the Sharia Law is implemented, this paper illustrates how the law in these countries amplifies social, physical, and structural violence specifically against gender and religious minorities, namely Shia. This highlights the immense disparities between international human rights norms and state-centric patriarchal norms. Additionally, by analyzing the legal frameworks of these states, specifically the Aceh region in Indonesia and Saudi Arabia as a whole, this article emphasizes the complex interplay between universalistic ideals and cultural relativism, emphasizing the need for a nuanced understanding of human rights in diverse cultural contexts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.028 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".