MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969895900 · doi:10.32396/usurj.v5i2.448

Discourse(s) of Female Genitalia

2019· article· en· W2969895900 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jordan Wellsch

Bibliographic record

VenueUSURJ University of Saskatchewan Undergraduate Research Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFemale Genital Mutilation/Cutting Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman sexualityAmbiguityAgency (philosophy)Female circumcisionGender studiesSex organSociologyPsychologySocial psychologyMedicineGynecologyLinguisticsBiologyPhilosophySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a discrepancy between “Western” engagement with female genital mutilation (FGM) and female genital cosmetic surgery (FGCS). Despite a similar ambiguity regarding the outcomes of each, FGM is ultimately condemned, while FGCS is permitted. By unpacking the dominant "Western" discourse(s) of each, this paper accounts for the discrepancy; FGCS is constructed as a medically legitimated option for enhancing the utility of one's genitals and for liberating one's sexuality, while FGM is constructed as a threat to "Western" conceptions of genital utility, sexuality and agency. Such discourse(s) arguably illustrate the tendency to condemn the contextual "other" and take “our” contextual constructions largely for granted.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.590
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.284 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUSURJ University of Saskatchewan Undergraduate Research JournalSame topicFemale Genital Mutilation/Cutting IssuesFrench-language works237,207