MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896434909 · doi:10.1080/00981389.2018.1526842

Living with stigma: Voices from the Cured Lepers’ village in Ghana

2018· article· en· W2896434909 on OpenAlexaff
Cynthia Akorfa Sottie, Judith Darkey

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Work in Health Care · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican Sexualities and LGBTQ+ Issues
Canadian institutionsBooth University College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStigma (botany)LeprosySocial isolationNeglectMainstreamFocus groupSocial stigmaIsolation (microbiology)MedicineSociocultural evolutionSocial issuesDiseasePsychologyGerontologyPsychiatrySociologyFamily medicinePolitical scienceImmunologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stigmatization of persons cured of leprosy (PCLs) is a long standing social problem especially in the developing world, which often leads to their isolation from mainstream society. This study presents the voices of PCLs in the Cured Lepers' Village in Ho, a community located in Southern Ghana. The study collected data through in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with 20 participants. Findings indicate that PCLs continue to live a significant number of years in the Cured Lepers' Village after they are cured of leprosy. This situation is due to several factors such as stigma (including self-stigma), isolation, and neglect. Fear of the disease and compliance with religious and sociocultural beliefs, and regulations regarding leprosy were identified as reasons for the isolation of people affected by the disease. The study recommends a comprehensive public education program on leprosy targeting community leaders to help re-integrate PCLs into their communities and calls for social workers to be part of this process.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations20
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Work in Health CareSame topicAfrican Sexualities and LGBTQ+ IssuesFrench-language works237,207