MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991327355 · doi:10.22215/cjcr.v6i1.2035

'Not Like Other Girls':

2019· article· en· W2991327355 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nandini Ghosh

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Children s Rights / Revue canadienne des droits des enfants · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeologyFemininityGender studiesLocale (computer software)SociologyNegotiationContext (archaeology)Construct (python library)West bengalPsychologySocial scienceSocioeconomicsGeographyPoliticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Feminist disability scholars have argued that gendered societal standards influence and construct cultural notions of femininity and shape the development of identities of women with disabilities. Gender socialisation is one of the basic processes whereby identities are constructed and maintained through learning of socio-cultural ideologies regarding gender appropriate behaviour and its performance in daily life contexts. This paper attempts to reveal the ways in which girls with locomotor disability in West Bengal experience processes of gender socialisation, in the light of patriarchal and abilist ideologies existing their own cultural context. It also seeks to explore the ways in which these girls negotiate the self and a feminine performance in different ways, adhering to, questioning and subverting such ideologies in their daily lives. The paper is based on empirical data collected from sixteen women with locomotor disabilities living in the rural district of 24 Parganas (S) and the urban locale of Kolkata in West Bengal.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Children s Rights / Revue canadienne des droits des enfantsSame topicDisability Rights and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207