Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the experiences and perspectives of first/second generation South Asian Canadian women on the representation of South Asian culture and violence against South Asian women. Specifically, this study looks at the myth of South Asian cultural violence, which views South Asian culture as inherently oppressive toward women and South Asian men as violent; and as a result, South Asian women are seen as victims of these men and their culture. This study does not undermine violence against South Asian women, but challenges the ways in which violence against South Asian women gets talked about through the myth or the discourse of South Asian cultural violence. Both the state and (trans)national media play an important role in circulating this myth to further socio-political agendas. Centering the narratives of South Asian women in this study will show the ways in which they make meaning of the myth, as well as how they challenge and resist it. This study involves a focus group with two first/second generation South Asian Canadian women using arts-informed narrative methodology. Findings demonstrate that the discourse of South Asian cultural violence has had a significant impact on their relationship to themselves, other South Asians, and to the South Asian culture due to the ongoing encounter with stories of violence against South Asian women.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".