Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to provide an up to date account of recent papers and attitude on female genital mutilation in the past year. It is aimed at all professionals caring and supporting women/girls with female genital mutilation, and to identify gaps. RECENT FINDINGS: Given the multidisciplinary complexity of the practice of female genital mutilation, it is surprising how little empirical research (both quantitative and qualitative) exists. There is a paucity of rigorous research into its prevalence, its health consequences for those girls/women experiencing the practice, the understanding of professionals who have to address the issue, the implementation of existing legislation and the impact of programme interventions intended to change people's attitudes to, and the practice of, female genital mutilation. The overwhelming majority of literature focuses on the same topics, often drawing upon the same less-than-rigorous research data. SUMMARY: Worldwide, there are approximately 13 million refugees and asylum seekers, and human rights violations are seen as contributing factors to people fleeing their homeland. In the United States, those seeking asylum or refugee status are asked about their life experiences. African women are asked about ritual genital surgery, as it may be an indicator of their gynaecological, obstetric and sexual health. Health and social care professionals in host countries, in Europe, Australia, Canada, the USA and the UK, for example, are increasingly encountering this vulnerable client group in their practice and are finding that they are ill-prepared to deal with presenting complex health needs and challenges.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
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".