MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077063568 · doi:10.1080/01674820802547087

Female genital mutilation: an injury, physical and mental harm

2008· review· en· W2077063568 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFemale Genital Mutilation/Cutting Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLabia minoraClitorisMedicineLabiaLabia majoraVulvaGynecologyVaginaForeskinMenstruationSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article gives an overview over the huge topic of 'female genital mutilation' (FGM). FGM means non-therapeutic, partial or complete removal or injury of each of the external female genitals. It concerns about 130 million women around the world. FGM is performed in about 30 countries, most of which are located in Africa. Four types of FGM are distinguished: type I stands for the removal of the clitoral foreskin, type II means the removal of the clitoris with partial or total excision of the labia minora. Type III is the extreme type of FGM. Not only the clitoris but also the labia minora and majora were removed. The orificium vaginae is sewn up, leaving only a small opening for urine or menstruation blood. Other types like pricking, piercing of clitoris or vulva, scraping of the vagina, etc. were defined as type IV of FGM. The mentioned reasons for FGM are: encouragement of the patriarchal family system, method for birth control, guarantee of moral behaviour and faithfulness to the husband, protection of women from suspicions and disgrace, initiation ritual, symbol of feminity and beauty, hygienic, health and economic advantages. Acute physical consequences of FGM include bleeding, wound infections, sepsis, shock, micturition problems and fractures. Chronic physical problems like anemia, infections of the urinary tract, incontinence, infertility, pain, menstruation problems and dyspareunia are frequent. Women also have a higher risk for HIV infections. During pregnancy and delivery, examinations and vaginal application of medicine are more difficult. Women have a higher risk for a prolonged delivery, wound infections, a postpartum blood loss of more than 500 mL, perineal tears, a resuscitation of the infant and an inpatient perinatal death. Mental consequences after FGM include the feelings of incompleteness, fear, inferiority and suppression. Women report chronic irritability and nightmares. They have a higher risk for psychiatric and psychosomatic diseases. FGM carried out by doctors, nurses or midwives is also called medicalisation of FGM and is definitely unacceptable. Regarding human rights, FGM refuses women the right of freedom from bodily harm. Specific laws that ban FGM exist in many countries in Europe, Africa, USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.332 · 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