MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323362435 · doi:10.5539/ass.v19n2p48

Moderate Attitudes Towards Sex, Marriage, and LGBT in Indonesia: A Study of the Concept of Ipulaksanai and Its Implications for Sexuality, Marriage, and LGBT Norms Among Maanyan Dayak Communities in Indonesia

2023· article· en· W4323362435 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Idrus Sasirais, Bimbing Kalvari, Agustinus Hermino

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender and Women's Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTribeHuman sexualitySociologyGender studiesTabooSocial psychologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this research is to highlight the open and accepting attitude towards love, life, sexuality, and LGBT issues in the Maanyan Dayak tribe in Indonesia. They have a unique concept of "ipulaksanai," which emphasizes the interconnectedness of all human beings and a moderate and accepting view towards these topics. This serves as an inspiration for others in Indonesia facing a shift towards increasing conservatism, especially regarding sexual morals, to show more respect and respect for diverse attitudes towards love, life, sexuality, marriage, and LGBT issues. The Maanyan concept of "ipulaksanai" holds a similar view with the Indonesia philosophy of Unity in Diversity, different but one. This article is based on qualitative research conducted in 2019 with 14 informants, including traditional Dayak Maanyan figures, Kaharingan ritual leaders, Christian religious leaders, and representatives of the Maanyan community. The tribe believes in anti-violence and reconciliation and has a scapegoat mechanism in place to deal with sexual moral violations. The article shows how the tribe values democratic space regarding amorous and sexual initiatives and encourages people to ease the burden of shame.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicGender and Women's RightsFrench-language works237,207