When the Sun, the Moon and the Stars Align: Litigating LGBTQIA+ Rights and the Death Penalty in East Africa and the Caribbean
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article analyses LGBTQIA+ rights and death penalty litigation in the Caribbean and East Africa before and after the establishment of new regional international courts. LGBTQIA+ rights and the death penalty are both difficult and contested issues where global movements and litigation strategies easily clash with local sentiments. For litigation to have an impact in such issue areas, the article finds that three elements must align. First, there is a need for new institutional opportunities such as new judicial venues or laws. Second, there is a need for coordinated legal strategies that can utilize the available legal venues. Third, there is a need for a societal momentum for the cause, or at least the absence of strong political contestation against the cause. In our study, the establishment of new regional courts provided institutional opportunities that could be seized by transnational litigation networks. And as international courts operate at a distance from local politics, they have created a more neutral international legal opportunity structure. In the two regions and across the two issue areas studied, these three elements were most clearly aligned regarding death penalty litigation in the Caribbean and the least aligned regarding LGBTQIA+ litigation in East Africa.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".