Cultural Practices and cedaw: Epistemic Violence and the Marginalisation of Local Knowledge in International Human Rights Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article explores the realisation of rights for marginalised and disadvantaged women and girls in the Global South, with a particular focus on how the concept of “culture” is framed within international human rights discourse on violence against women (vaw). The article focuses on the work of the committee that monitors the major women’s convention, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (cedaw). cedaw’s discourse predominantly presents “culture” in negative terms – as a barrier to gender equality that States must work to eliminate. This perspective creates a rigid opposition between “culture” and “rights”, implying an inherent conflict between the two. As a result, those associated with certain cultural identities are further marginalised, reinforcing their status as the “other”. There is a systemic repression of the knowledge of other cultures and the positing of cultural Europeanisation as the only valid framework for addressing vaw. As a key site for the construction of knowledge, communities, and identities, cedaw’s interpretive framework for addressing vaw needs to be reassessed.
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 | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.076 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".