Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents cross-cultural research into women's sexuality, and orgasm in particular. Qualitative interviews of women who have undergone excision of the clitoris and women who have not form the core of my data. My analysis indicates that female orgasm in diverse societies is problematized and controlled, causing me to postulate numerous similarities between women despite cultural and physical differences. One of the most significant findings is that similar attitudes toward the clitoris might be invoked to explain both its removal, in excising societies, and clitoral-vaginal theoretical bifurcations in non-excising ones. The originality of my theoretical approach is to examine various types of social constructionism. I demonstrate its pertinence to an understanding of the literal construction of the body through social practices or social imperatives which determine physical reality. My use of the term constructionism as anti-essentialism also enables me to identify common components of drive theory in diverse cultures, and to demonstrate their lack of correlation with sexual behavior. Finally, constructionism is a crucial element to my analysis of subjective beliefs concerning female orgasm. Interpretation of physiological response supports a belief in clitoral-vaginal opposition in defiance of the interdependence of these two organs, thereby reflecting the constructionist insistence upon reality as socially defined. The originality of this research lies in its comparative perspective and resulting emphasis on similarities in culturally diverse groups. Female sexuality and orgasm are filtered through social existence. A physiological response can thus be denied or substantiated by social means.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".