MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945062546 · doi:10.5430/elr.v8n2p10

Gender and Middle-East: An Intersectionality Perspective

2019· article· en· W2945062546 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rajdeep Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Linguistics Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntersectionalityMainstreamPerspective (graphical)Gender studiesSociologyInterpersonal communicationGender equalityFeminist movementFeminismPolitical scienceComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intersectionality, the relations among different social variables and their interplay, is an inevitable and most employed way of analyzing the gender related issues. We also consider the intersectionality as a great window to new horizons for gender equality aspirations and research. By modifying the more traditional type of intersectional research methodology, we could build up a solid framework for future studies on gender issues particular to the Middle-East. Our goal is to offer a modern model for intersectional studies specific to middle-east, brining onboard different perspectives, usually neglected in mainstream intersectional studies on gender. This model provides a firm ground for psychological questions touching individual as well interpersonal and social dimensions. For this, we concentrate on Iran where the feminist movement is growing fast and there are reasons to believe that it has religious and social texture similar to the rest of the region. We used intersectional methodology as we consider this the most suitable for gender studies. This paper presents a novel model which offers a great unique opportunity to understand the complexity of factors involving the gender issues in a region which is growing fast but still clings to traditions. We further illustrate how the language plays a role in implementing governmental policy which brings about changes in identity and gender inequality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.685
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.391
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.042 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Linguistics ResearchSame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207