MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4365998798 · doi:10.1080/10357823.2023.2188580

West Papuan ‘Housewives’ with HIV: Gender, Marriage, and Inequality in Indonesia

2023· article· en· W4365998798 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jenny Munro

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Studies Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsInequalityGender studiesEthnographyHousewifeHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)IndigenousSympathyStructural violenceStigma (botany)SociologySocioeconomicsGeographyPsychologyPolitical scienceSocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indonesia defies gendered HIV risk stereotypes, and most women with HIV do not fit any pre-defined risk groups. In Indonesia, HIV predominates in women who identify as ‘housewives’. In the dominant imaginary, housewives are married homemakers, dedicated to children and husband, faithful, and sexually modest. Drawing on ethnographic research and interviews with Indigenous Papuan women in Manokwari, West Papua province, I problematise the category of the housewife and show how gendered structural inequalities contribute to Papuan HIV experiences and risks. The West Papuan frontier economy is racialised, male-dominated, and sexualised. Papuan ‘housewives’ may be left behind while husbands are away working and studying. Rather than experience sympathy and support, Papuan ‘housewives’ with HIV expect stigma and are let down by healthcare services. By including interviews with ‘sex workers’, I show that there are common structural inequalities faced by women, regardless of which moral category they appear to represent. While not commensurate with the rest of Indonesia, structural inequalities in West Papua signal the need for deeper attention to gendered inequalities and structural violence to prevent HIV among 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 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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Studies ReviewSame topicSex work and related issuesFrench-language works237,207