Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article a it6 h i t en vue de servir de p i d e de prhentation aux dPfenseurs &S droits humains internationaux a j n de leur permettre k dhlopper des stratPgiespour contrer fa violence faite auxfemmes. Les auteureh) croient que les militantes des droits des femmes ont intkrit h dkmystifer les instruments et les mdcanismes disponibles dans le systPme international des droits humains et qu 'elles seront en mesure de donner cette information en faisant un choix kchiri quand il s'agira d'incorporer les nonnes internationales dans leurs statdgies Canada. As a signatory to all the major human rights treaties and conventions, the Canadian government has committed to respecting international human rights ob-ligations. There are two kinds of obligations: negative ones that prohibit government action violating specified rights, and positive obligations that require governments to take proactive steps, exemplified by the Canadian Charter, to ensure and protect the enjoyment of human rights. d 'action. Declarations, treaties, conventions and protocols If one looks at the Women's Convention and other international documents of human rights, every title begins with the word 'States parties', and proceeds to unfold the obligations of the State. As states are the foundation of the international order, this is inescap-able. However, if the state is entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring women's rights, if it is always viewed as active and paternalistic in a benign manner, then this does pose serious questions. Unless these human rights values take root in civil society, and unless civil institutions and NGO'S take up the cause, then women's rights as rights will have no
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.297 | 0.210 |
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".