MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416320391 · doi:10.1590/2317-6172202533

An Exploration of Petition 16 through the Prism of Equality

2025· article· pt· W4416320391 on OpenAlexaff
Serena Meghji

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Direito GV · 2025
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrismDisadvantageState (computer science)Constitutional courtSet (abstract data type)High CourtLegislationHuman rights

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract On August 19, 2020, the Constitutional Court of Uganda handed down a landmark judgment in the Petition 16 case. The decision transformed the legal landscape surrounding preventable maternal death in Uganda by recognising the obligations of the State to protect maternal health. The case marked the first instance of an African Constitutional Court finding violations of the rights to health, life, gender equality, and freedom from inhumane and degrading treatment in the State’s role in preventable maternal death. This paper examines the implications of the judgment through the lenses of the two women whose deaths prompted the case, Sylvia Nalubowa and Jennifer Anguko. It first details the stories and contexts of each woman, before weighing the effectiveness of the Court’s equality-based analysis. While Petition 16 is undeniably historic, this paper argues that the Court should have gone further in its analysis to effectively illuminate the structural and cross-cutting forms of disadvantage faced by each woman. This paper concludes by reconstructing Petition 16 through a substantive gender equality framework to reveal previously unexplored rights violations and an expanded set of remedies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0270.101
Scholarly communication0.0160.012
Open science0.0020.014
Research integrity0.0080.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Direito GVSame topicHuman Rights and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207