Views of Male Community Elders With Regards to Medical Male Circumcision at Pfanani Clinic in Limpopo Province, South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore the views of male community elders to Medical Male Circumcision at Pfanani clinic in Limpopo Province. A qualitative, descriptive and explorative research design was used. Purposive sampling was used whereby the researchers interviewed a total of 18 male community elders of ages ranging from 40 to 75 years who came for consultation at the Pfanani clinic. Data was collected using semi-structured one to one interviews. Data were analyzed using the Tesch’s open-coding method one theme and its sub-themes emerged. The study found that Medical Male Circumcision is sometimes not a safe procedure, there are several unexpected outcomes which are experienced, Traditional Male Circumcision predispose males to infections, the environment where the Traditional Male Circumcision is done predisposes males to bad environmental conditions, the period when the Traditional Male Circumcision is performed is viewed as a moral teaching session and lessons learned prepares boys for manhood. The study recommended that the Department of Health should conduct workshops and training for traditional circumcisers and train them on how to maintain sterility during circumcision to avoid the initiates not having infection.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".