Bibliographic record
Abstract
As immigrant women from African countries enter the U.S., Canada, Australia, and Western Europe, western health care providers are beginning to see patients affected by the cultural practice of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). Unfamiliar with the practice, either medically or culturally, these providers are turning to medical librarians for information. Complicating the issue are the strong negative feelings most western health care workers have about FGM, which appears to them to be both barbaric and cruel. These feelings may conflict strongly with those of their immigrant patients, who regard the practice as normal and desirable. Both medical and cultural information are needed for the professional to provide treatment of medical conditions, while also establishing a good relationship with the FGM affected patient. This article identifies and describes the most important refereed journal article databases, available now over the Internet, providing both medical and cultural information on FGM, and the most useful Web sites for health professionals, librarians, and interested laypersons who need information about this difficult multicultural issue.
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 | 0.007 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.029 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.154 | 0.016 |
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".