Ensuring Equal and Inclusive Rights to Access Sexual and Reproductive Health Services for Adolescent Girls with Disabilities in Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In many African societies, access to sexual and reproductive health care services for adolescent girls remains very problematic. This is due to a number of reasons, including socio-cultural factors, influence of religion, negative attitudes of health care providers and legal and policy barriers. The situation is further compounded for adolescent girls with disabilities, as many of them are perceived as asexual and unable to make decisions about their sexual and reproductive health. Unfortunately, laws and policies related to sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) of adolescent girls with disabilities tend to exclude their views, reinforcing stigma and discrimination against them. Using the substantive equality and inclusivity lens, this article argues that if adolescent girls with disabilities are to live a fulfilling and healthy life, they must have access to sexual and reproductive health services on an equal basis with others. More importantly, laws and policies to address gaps in access to SRHR services must adhere to rights-based principles, such as respect for dignity, non-discrimination, participation, and accountability, which are entrenched in different human rights instruments. Drawing exemplars from across the region, the paper notes that these human rights instruments require African governments, among other things, to remove various barriers to access to SRHR services for adolescent girls with disabilities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".