MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3144455539 · doi:10.1177/10608265211004574

Circumcision Debates in <i>Sexology</i> Magazine (1934–1975)

2021· article· en· W3144455539 on OpenAlex
Jonathan A. Allan

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Men s Studies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenital Health and Disease
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsSexologyMale circumcisionMedicalizationMedicineGender studiesPolitical scienceSociologyHuman sexualityPsychiatryPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores articles about circumcision that appeared in Sexology: Sex Science Magazine, with particular attention to how the debates shifted and changed over a forty-year period. The articles on circumcision in Sexology begin in November 1934 and end in the May 1973 issue, with every decade of publication includes articles on circumcision, corresponding with growing debates about the medicalization of routine neonatal circumcision. The first article sought to understand “circumcision among savage peoples,” which was quickly followed by an article on “Circumcision among the Jews,” and then “Medical view of circumcision.” In its earliest issues, Sexology advanced arguments in favor of routine circumcision, but in its final article on the topic, Sexology asks, “what’s so good about circumcision?”

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 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)0.001
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 score0.493
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.314 · 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