Review of: Schliesmann, P. (2012). Honour on Trial: The Shafia Murders and the Culture of Honour Killings. Markham: Fitzhenry and Whiteside.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Paul Schliesmann's book, "Honour on Trial: The Shafia Murders and the Culture of Honour Killings," gives an insider's perspective into the way individuals are victimized by their own culture.Schliesmann effectively demonstrates how women, surrounded by Western culture and lifestyles, are subject to fall under its norms and abandon other cultural family values.Schliesmann investigates how Afghan women are expected to behave inside and outside of the home and the consequences of failing to do so.In the summer of 2009, the bodies of four dead Afghan women were found in a sunken Nissan Sentra in a lock station outside of Kingston, Ontario.Accusations were made of how the car got there and why it was found in the locks, but as investigations, interrogations, interviews, and trials proceeded on, there was only one clear answer.Mohammad Shafia, Hamed Shafia, and Tooba Mohammad Yahya were all charged with four counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison for murdering Mohammad's first wife Rona, daughters and Hamed's sisters, Zainab, Geeti, and Sahar.In several religions around the world, including Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, and Judaism, the concept of killing individuals, particularly women, to restore honour within the family is known and practiced (p.153).Schliesmann successfully describes the nature of honour killings and what leads up to them.Women who dishonour the family by disobeying family orders and values are subject to be victims of these types of killings.Men within the household
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.024 |
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".