MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913755957 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.48.3.339

Trapped Between National Boundaries and Patriarchal Structures: Palestinian Bedouin Women and Polygamous Marriage in Israel

2017· article· en· W2913755957 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rawia Aburabia

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMarriage and Sexual Relationships
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPunitive damagesLawMarriage lawHuman rightsFamily lawCitizenshipIsraeli lawPolitical scienceState (computer science)SociologyCommon lawMunicipal lawPoliticsChinese law

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are no accurate data on the prevalence of polygamy in Palestinian society in Israel, but many estimates indicate that polygamy is about 20/36 percent of Bedouin households. Moreover, in the past three decades, there has been a consistent increase in the number of polygamous marriages in the Arab Bedouin sector. Under international law, polygamy is perceived as discriminatory and is associated with all forms of harms to women: physical, mental, sexual, reproductive, and economic. Under the Israeli law, according to the punitive code, polygamy is a criminal offence. However, under the Sharia law, that governs family laws for Muslims in Israel, polygamy is permitted. As a consequence, due to the fact that the state does not enforce the punitive code for the Bedouin citizens, polygamous marriage is valid and practiced. This ambivalence of the Israeli legislature and the legal system violates the human rights of Arab Bedouin women and creates a situation in which they are excluded from the law by the different legal systems: criminal law, the Shari’a and customary law. It raises significant questions about Arab Bedouin women’s citizenship and human rights and about the role of family laws in the Zionist-Jewish state, i.e., a state that segregates Bedouin society by supporting the traditional tribal system and by condoning practices such as polygamy. The analyses of these issues, which illustrate the strength of the “fortress nation” at the global era, constitute the main axis of this paper.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.243
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations16
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicMarriage and Sexual RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207