Women's Reproductive Health Rights: The Rule of Law and Public Health Considerations in Repealing the Criminal Laws on Abortion in the Republic Suriname
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within the Surinamese jurisdiction the Constitution grants women the right to health and imposes a legal duty on the state to facilitate the realization of this right. Also treaty law, in particular, the ICESCR article 12 and the CEDAW article 12 grant women the right to the highest attainable standard of health and the right to non-discriminatory access to healthcare. But due to the criminal law applicable to abortion women lack non-discriminatory access to reproductive healthcare and therefore do not enjoy the highest attainable standard of pregnancy related health. Despite its decision not to enforce the abortion prohibiting criminal laws, Suriname remains in a state of failure to comply with its legal duties as imposed by the Constitution and treaty law. This, due to the state’s reluctance to repeal the criminal laws on abortion and its failure to enact effective health regulations to facilitate women in need of an abortion.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".