Bibliographic record
Abstract
Between 1920 and 1949 the British-led colonial government in Sudan embarked on a largely unsuccessful campaign to stop the practice of ‘female circumcision’ in the northern two thirds of the country, the part where Islam prevails. The form of genital cutting concerned has been identified as the most radical (type 3) in WHO publications, and accounts for approximately fifteen percent of cases world wide; it is practiced mainly in north east Africa, by people of several religious persuasions: Christian, Muslim, and indigenous. In Muslim Sudan it is referred to as ‘pharaonic purification’ and attributed to the ancient Egyptians; in Egypt it is referred to as ‘Sudanese’. The procedure, technically called infibulation, involves removing the protruding clitoris and small labia, then paring the large labia and fastening them together to cover the vaginal opening, leaving a very small opening for the elimination of waste. A thick layer of scar tissue develops that all but closes the entrance to the womb; this must be opened at marriage and further cut to enable birth. The practice has long been a requirement of marriageability in northern Sudan; it is ‘normalized’ and supported by a deep-seated cultural logic of which I have written at length that affirms the aesthetic and moral value of ‘covering’ or ‘closing’ (Boddy 1989).
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 | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".