MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7002139808

Mapping Child Marriage Within the History of International Law: A Turn to the Archives of the 1926 Slavery Convention

2025· other· en· W7002139808 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueYork University Digital Library (York University) · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFemale Genital Mutilation/Cutting Issues
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFraming (construction)LeagueHegemonyColonialismPoliticsIdeologyHuman rights
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At its heart, this thesis is an investigation into how the female child, compelled into conditions akin to slavery through marriage, has been historically marginalized from the scope of slavery as it is defined in the 1926 Slavery Convention. Conversely, the Human Rights Council of the United Nations General Assembly recently recognized that the experiences and exploitation of women in forced marriages can meet the international legal definition of slavery. This framing evolution indicates the reorientation of institutional efforts in recognizing forced marriages as a form of slavery. Through a historical study of the international legal origin of slavery, this thesis probes into the conceptual and linguistic shift in the framing of forced marriages. In doing so, it identifies, within the archives of the League of Nations, the forces which shaped a narrow conception of slavery in the law. A critical analysis of the intersections of law and gender during the colonial era of the League of Nations concludes with the identification of a systematic exclusion of child marriage from the legal construction of slavery, driven by hegemonic forces. This work finds that the politics and ideologies of coloniality shaped a narrow conception of slavery, enabling the continued economic, labor, and other forms of exploitation of the colonized Global South. It emphasizes the limitations of the prevailing anti-slavery framework, rooted in this history, which continues to relegate the enslaved child to the margins.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.226
Threshold uncertainty score0.805

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.164
Teacher spread0.155 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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 venueYork University Digital Library (York University)Same topicFemale Genital Mutilation/Cutting IssuesFrench-language works237,207