Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book assesses the impact and effectiveness of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (Maputo Protocol) in 16 state parties. These countries are: Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Eswatini, the Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe. Each of the chapters traces the impact that the Protocol has had on the policies, laws, court decisions, civil society activism, and legal education in the particular state. Each chapter also discusses the relationship of the state with the African human rights mechanisms. \n \nThe book is an update of two prior volumes of essays, titled The impact of the African Charter and the Maputo Protocol in selected African states, published by PULP in 2012 and 2016, and edited by the Centre for Human Rights, Universityof Pretoria (Centre) and Victor Ayeni, respectively. The third edition, focused more narrowly on the Maputo Protocol, appears as the continent marks 20 years since the adoption of the Protocol on 11 July 2003. By 11 July 2023, 54 out of 55 African Union member states (with the exception of Morocco) have become party to the African Charter, and 44 of them have accepted the Maputo Protocol. \n \nThe book is edited by and contains several chapters by alumni of the Master’s in Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa programme of the Centre. The Centre intends to use this research as the basis for a continuously updated database on the impact of the African Charter and Maputo Protocol.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.025 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.079 | 0.058 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".