MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3153075944

Introducing the Practice of Breast Ironing as a Human Rights Issue In Cameroon

2014· article· en· W3153075944 on OpenAlexaff
Julie Ada Tchoukou

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGirlHuman rightsContext (archaeology)NormativePolitical scienceLawGender studiesSociologyCriminologyPsychologyGeographyDevelopmental psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Breast ironing is a form of violence that takes place in certain regions of Cameroon. It is a violent practice which is forced upon young girls who have just entered puberty, and is mostly performed by mothers on their daughters. It is one of the most widespread and systematic violations of the universal human rights to personal integrity committed against the girl child in Cameroon, abusing their physical, sexual and psychological integrity. Cameroon has ratified a number of international and regional human rights instruments that protect women and girl children from all forms of violence. However, despite Cameroon’s obligations under international law, this practice continues to be widespread. This article introduces the practice of breast ironing as a human rights issue, and will look at its history, social context, prevalence, rationale and consequences. It will discuss and analyse relevant international and African regional human rights instruments to which Cameroon is a party to and which protects women and girl children from violence. It will also look at the existing normative framework in Cameroon and examine steps taken to regulate this practice.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.015
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicMigration, Health and Trauma→French-language works237,207→