MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3166561813 · doi:10.1111/ajsp.12487

Development of the Meanings Of The Hijab (MOTH) Scale

2021· article· en· W3166561813 on OpenAlexaffabout
Saba Safdar, Ashna Jassi

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Journal Of Social Psychology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDiscriminant validityScale (ratio)ReligiositySocial psychologyEthnic groupExpression (computer science)Identity (music)FaithExploratory factor analysisConvergent validityPopulationDevelopmental psychologyPsychometricsSociologyAestheticsDemographyAnthropologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous research has examined the multiple meanings of hijab among Muslim women, but a quantitative scale to examine such meanings has yet to be developed. The present study was designed to develop and validate a new scale, Meanings Of The Hijab (MOTH), for measuring multiple meanings associated with wearing a headscarf for Muslim women living in countries where the majority of the population is non‐Muslim. The initial 64‐item scale was employed to 442 Canadian Muslim women, along with the Social Axiom Survey and the Cultural Identity Scale. An exploratory factor analysis led to the development of the MOTH scale with 35 items and five factors. The factors reflect meanings of the hijab in terms of: Expression of Faith Without Hijab, Expression of Modesty and Religiosity, Expression of Personal Identity, Challenges of Wearing Hijab, and Negative Symbolism of the Hijab in the West . The MOTH scale was found to have high internal validity and discriminant validity. In addition, convergent and discriminant validity of MOTH subscales were established by examining their relations with social axioms, ethnic identity, and national identity.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.486
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Journal Of Social PsychologySame topicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political ViolenceFrench-language works237,207