MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018243784 · doi:10.1353/pbm.2008.0012

From Body to Brain: Considering the Neurobiological Effects of Female Genital Cutting

2008· article· en· W2018243784 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives in biology and medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFemale Genital Mutilation/Cutting Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVulvaClitorisLabia majoraLabia minoraPerceptionFemale circumcisionBiologyAnatomySex organPsychologyNeuroscienceMedicineGynecologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Female genital cutting (FGC) is an ancient tradition unbounded by religion and practiced primarily in Africa and the regions to which Africans have immigrated. All types of FGC involve cutting neural innervation to the vulva: the clitoris, labia majora and minora. Most types include excision of the clitoris. Since the tissue of the vulva is highly innervated by nerves and their endings, I postulate here that the brain and spinal cord will respond to FGC as it would to any loss of neural targets or inputs: by rearranging neural networks. This, in turn, would affect neural signaling to target structures and modify sensory perception. Most scientific investigations of FGC have focused on its reproductive consequences. To fully appreciate its effects on the lives of women, however, an understanding beyond the reproductive system is necessary. Exploring the potential neural changes of FGC may help explain the mixed responses of the women themselves and identify new directions for research to understand their lives. A neurobiological analysis may also help us understand how cultural practices inscribe meaning on central nervous system structures, affecting mind as well as body.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it