MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215010852 · doi:10.1177/10778012211045710

Exploring Beliefs and Attitudes Toward Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting Among Healthcare Providers in New York City

2021· article· en· W3215010852 on OpenAlexaff
Min Moonkyung, Tracy Wong, Adeyinka M. Akinsulure‐Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueViolence Against Women · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFemale Genital Mutilation/Cutting Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of Child Health and Human Development
KeywordsCognitive dissonanceFemale circumcisionGrounded theoryImmigrationPsychologyHealth careHealth professionalsSocial psychologyNursingMedicineQualitative researchSociologyPolitical scienceGynecologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the increase of African immigrants from countries with high female genital cutting (FGC) prevalence, this study explored U.S. healthcare providers' beliefs and attitudes regarding FGC. A total of 31 professionals who have provided services to FGC-experienced women in New York City were interviewed; data were analyzed using grounded theory. Results indicated that, although a majority of respondents emphasized maintaining a nonjudgmental and open-minded attitude toward clients' experiences, some only focused on the negative aspects of FGC. Also, multifaceted efforts by providers to understand the cultural meanings of FGC and resolve their own cultural dissonance were identified. The implications for practice were discussed.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueViolence Against WomenSame topicFemale Genital Mutilation/Cutting IssuesFrench-language works237,207