Women's human rights : CEDAW in international, regional and national law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Anne Hellum and Henriette Sinding Aasen Part I. Potential Added Value of the CEDAW: 1. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination of Women Andrew Byrnes 2. The United Nations Working Group on the Issue of Discrimination against Women in Law and Practice Fareda Banda 3. CEDAW: a holistic approach to women's equality and freedom Rikki Holtmaat 4. CEDAW as a legal framework for transnational discourses on gender stereotyping Simone Cusack 5. From CEDAW to the American Convention: elucidation of women's right to a life's project and protection of maternal identity within inter-American human rights jurisprudence Cecilia Bailliet 6. Pulling apart? Treatment of pluralism in CEDAW and in Maputo protocol Celestine Nyamu Musembi Part II. Actual Added Value of the CEDAW: Socio-Economic Rights: 7. Engendering socio-economic rights Sandra Fredman 8. 'Women's rights are human rights!' The practice of the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Fleur van Leeuwen 9. Property and security: articulating women's rights to their homes Ingunn Ikdahl 10. Maternal mortality and women's right to health Henriette Sinding Aasen Part III. The CEDAW in National Law: 11. The implementation of the CEDAW Convention in Australia: success, trials, tribulations and continuing struggle Andrew Byrnes 12. The Canadian experience with the CEDAW: all women's rights are human rights - a case of treaties synergy Lucie Lamarche 13. India's CEDAW story Madhu Mehra 14. Judicial education on the Convention on Elimination of Discrimination against Women in Nepal Kabita Pandey 15. From ratification to implementation: 'domesticating' CEDAW in state, government and society. A case study of Pakistan Shaheen Sardar Ali 16. Zimbabwe and CEDAW compliance: pursuing women's equality in fits and starts Choice Damiso and Julie Stewart 17. The CEDAW after all these years: firmly rooted in the Dutch clay? Marjolein van den Brink 18. CEDAW in the UK Sandra Fredman 19. Domestication of the CEDAW in France: from paradoxes to ambivalences and back again Helene Ruiz Fabri and Andrea Hamann 20. Rise and fall of the CEDAW in Finland: time to reclaim its impetus Kevat Nousiainen and Merja Pentikainen 21. Making space and giving voice: CEDAW in Norwegian law Anne Hellum Conclusions Anne Hellum and Henriette Sinding Aasen.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".