MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910829156 · doi:10.1080/13691058.2018.1555718

Following the divine: an ethnographic study of structural violence among transgender <i>jogappas</i> in South India

2019· article· en· W2910829156 on OpenAlexafffund
Sumit Dutta, Shamshad Khan, Robert Lorway

Bibliographic record

VenueCulture Health & Sexuality · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTransgenderLegislationEthnographyGender studiesSociologyReligiosityCriminologySocial WelfareStructural violencePolitical sciencePoliticsLawAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Newly proposed legislation that aims to protect the well-being of transgender people in India offers hope of greater recognition of human rights and improved access to entitlements for these marginalised groups. However, social welfare and health institutions have a long way to go in translating proposed legislation into policies that can concretely address the social suffering of transgender people. Drawing on ethnographic field research in northern Karnataka among a highly understudied transgender group known as the jogappas, we describe the effects of overlapping forms of structural violence surrounding education, subsistence, family life and attempts to access social and health services. Findings reveal how social inequities are implicated in the emergence of transgender subjectivities along the road to becoming a jogappa. Our findings alert policy makers to the diverse needs of transgender people in India, which continually evolve while rooted in moral histories of religiosity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.363 · 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

Citations29
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCulture Health & SexualitySame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207