MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134434662 · doi:10.1016/s0020-7292(02)00277-1

Female genital cutting (mutilation/circumcision): ethical and legal dimensions

2002· article· en· W2134434662 on OpenAlex
Rebecca J. Cook, Bernard M. Dickens, Mahmoud F. Fathalla

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

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFemale Genital Mutilation/Cutting Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVirginity testHuman sexualityFemale circumcisionHuman rightsHonorCompromiseImmigrationDomestic violencePolitical sciencePsychologyMedicineLawGynecologyPoison controlSuicide preventionEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The practice better described as female genital cutting (FGC) is of long standing in some communities, and has spread to non-traditional countries by immigration. It is of varying degrees of invasiveness, often including clitoridectomy, but all raise health-related concerns, which can be of considerable physical and/or psychological severity, and compromise gynecological and obstetric care. The practice is not based on a requirement of religious observance, although parents usually seek it for their daughters in good faith. It is directed to the social control of women's sexuality, in association with preservation of virginity and family honor. FGC is becoming increasingly prohibited by law, in countries both of its traditional practice and of immigration. Medical practice prohibits FGC. In compromising women's health and negating their sexuality, FGC is a human rights abuse that physicians have a role in eliminating by education of patients and communities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.277 · 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