MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2298088207 · doi:10.14288/1.0099628

Ismaili women’s experiences of in-group discrimination

2009· article· en· W2298088207 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shamsah J. Mohamed

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIslamic Studies and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroup (periodic table)PsychologyMedicineGender studiesSociologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Ismā’ īlīs in Vancouver, Canada at the present time are a religious group mainly from a South Asian ethnic background also sometimes referred to as Khōja Ismā’ īlīs. The purpose of this study is to illuminate the experiences of Ismā’ īlīs women who were identified as marginalized from the Ismā’ īlīs community (e.g., they may not attend the Jama'at Khana on a regular basis, or they may have chosen to have limited contact within the community). In-group discrimination occurs through interactions with other members of the same community. Experiences of different forms of in-group discrimination were explored through in-depth interviews with six adult Ismā’ īlīs women, aged 24 to 45, who immigrated to Canada within the last 30 years and who currently reside in Vancouver. The study used a multicase design and followed the constant comparative method of data analysis. Results revealed nine themes of discrimination; five causes or forms of discrimination, and four consequences or outcomes. In addition, the context in which the discrimination occurs, recommendations for the community, and positive aspects of the faith and religion as interpreted by the participants were presented. The results indicated that the women's experiences contained examples of in-group discrimination that ranged from classism to physical abuse; and reflected both structural and functional themes of discrimination.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.589
Threshold uncertainty score0.834

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicIslamic Studies and HistoryFrench-language works237,207