Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concurrent sexual networks have been identified in empirical studies as significantly amplifying rates of HIV transmission in comparison to sequential monogamy or sporadic sexual encounters. This paper examines how states’ legal condonation of discriminatory, high-risk concurrent sexual networks, including polygyny, violates women’s human rights and undermines their sexual and reproductive health. Because of its gender asymmetry and aggravation of marital inequality, polygyny places women at a greater risk of HIV infection and restricts their ability to insist on partner fidelity, negotiate condom use and leave high-risk relationships. The continued legal recognition of polygyny at the point of marriage formation by the majority of Southern African states violates women’s equality, health, and dignity rights. This paper stresses states’ international obligations to cease deferring to parallel legal systems that perpetuate inequality within marriage and family life. In moving to discourage polygyny, this paper posits an engagement approach that would continue to protect women’s rights within existing unions while discouraging the practice at the point of marriage formation. Going forward, HIV prevention programmes can provide useful fora to advance social justice and equality within marriage and intimate relationships when they are evidence-based and respond to the diverse realities of women’s lived sexual and marital experiences. Programmes that address social constructions of gender and sexuality will likely prove the most effective in discouraging polygyny and advancing transformative gender equality.
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 | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".