Bibliographic record
Abstract
Harmful traditional practices, including female genital cutting (FGC), may be eliminated under the impact of internationally-respected human rights principles, guidelines for healthcare professionals and national laws. At least 2 million girls per year are at risk of female genital cutting, some in regions where it has not been prevalent. Four types of female genital cutting have been identified by the World Health Organization. Even the mildest forms can have harmful, even life-threatening effects if done with crude instruments, in unhygienic conditions and/or without anaesthesia. \n \nThe practice persists as a cultural rather than religious requirement, since it is not mandated in sacred texts or doctrines of relevant religions. The cultural motivation is to uphold the stereotype of female purity as the focus and token of the family's honour, since some types of FGC reduce feminine sexual desire and/or vulnerability to rape. This motivation reflects a wider historical context of the social control of female sexuality. \n \nAlthough FGC would theoretically be safer in medical than in unskilled hands, the procedure bears an irreducible minimum risk of injury, and is almost always non-therapeutic. Therefore, the practice violates physicians’ professional obligation to “Do No Harm.” Supported by international and national profesional guidelines, healthcare professionals should oppose any attempt to medicalize the procedure or allow it to occur in health establishments. Underpinning the guidelines is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by all countries except Somalia and the U.S. \n \nPhysicians should clearly explain why they cannot perform FGC and educate requesting parents and others about risks of such procedures in unskilled hands, and protest the violation of women’s bodily integrity. Physicians can also note its modern decline as an expectation in more educated communities. They should note any legal liability associated with performance or request of FGC, while generally aiding parents, families and communities to understand the medical profession’s benevolent purposes in banning such procedures. Medical associations and individual physicians are also urged to collaborate with national authorities, non-governmental organizations and, for instance, religious leaders, to support measures aimed at elimination of this harmful traditional practice.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".