Are you in pain if you say you are not? Accounts of pain in Somali–Canadian women with female genital cutting
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: As a rite of passage to womanhood, 2 million girls undergo female genital circumcision (FGC)-the tradition of cutting, and often removing parts of the vulva-every year. The current study is the first to focus on the connection between peripheral nerve damage and chronic neuropathic pain in women with FGC. We used mixed methods-quantitative, qualitative, and physiological-to study chronic pain in Somali-Canadian women (N = 14). These women have the most extensive form of FGC, which includes removal of the glans clitoris, labia minora, medial portion of the labia majora, and stitching together the remaining parts of the labia majora. Our results indicate a multifaceted pain experience in women with FGC. Although they report good overall health and very low pain levels on the short form of the McGill Pain Questionnaire, pressure-pain quantitative sensory testing of the vulvar region applied through vulvalgesiometers shows pain thresholds consistent with those reported by women with chronic vulvar pain. Furthermore, qualitative interviews reveal a considerable amount of often debilitating pain in daily life. These results challenge the use of assessment tools offering elicited verbal pain language and highlight the importance of culturally sensitive ways of conceptualizing, measuring, and managing pain.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it