Meanings of the <i>Hijab</i>: Views of Canadian Muslim women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study demonstrates the individualized phenomenological experiences of Muslim‐Canadian women through their relationships with head covering, most commonly known as the hijab . By conducting in‐depth interviews with ten women, five who cover and five who do not, we sought to understand their day‐to‐day experiences with covering, and how their interpretations of these experiences were related to them as individuals, as well as to broader social contexts. Through the use of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis, we found that the women's experiences can be regarded as an interplay between internal experience, that is, the personal meanings that the women placed on wearing or not wearing a headscarf, and external experience, that is, their interpretations of outside events and treatment by others as related to the headscarf. Their experiences were also embedded in the contexts of their cultural and religious communities, and broader Canadian society. Consistent with previous work, themes such as Muslim identity, religiosity and modesty were highlighted by the women, however, rather than focusing on general experiences across participants, we give primary attention to how these themes unfolded in the individual women's lives. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd, Asian Association of Social Psychology and Beijing Normal University
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".