Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hijab has taken on distinctive meanings according to its cultural contexts—it was part of discussions on women’s rights in Egypt in the 1930s, and women became a litmus test of modernity. At that time the full range of women’s lives was the focus, not a narrow concern about whether or not they wore hijab. Through the Nasser period the hijab could be associated with country women and thus rejected by the middle class; however, it was often worn to identify hadjis, those who had made the pilgrimage that year. This began to shift in the Sadat era as hijab was donned in affirmation of Islam and by the 1980s, with the influences of Wahhabism and the Muslim Brotherhood, hijab had become a political statement. In Canada, it often is associated with Muslim identity. Through the gaze of personal experience, Erving Goffman’s idea of impression management does not provide sufficient explanatory framework. There are many discourses around the hijab and no one discourse is sufficient to pin down the complexity of international hijab-wearing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".