MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385402771 · doi:10.33367/tribakti.v34i1.3208

Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C) for The Harmony of Sexual Relationship by Islamic Law Perspective

2023· article· en· W4385402771 on OpenAlexaff
Nurun Sariyah, Abdul Aziz, Aspandi Aspandi, Ahmad Fathan Aniq

Bibliographic record

VenueTribakti Jurnal Pemikiran Keislaman · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFemale Genital Mutilation/Cutting Issues
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmony (color)IslamDoctrinePsychologyPerspective (graphical)PhenomenonFemale circumcisionSociologyGender studiesLawSocial psychologyMedicinePolitical scienceGynecologyPhilosophyEpistemologyArtTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The practice of female circumcision or FGM/C (Female Genitalia Mutilation/Cutting) in Indonesia is stated as a purification process by removing najis or dirt in female genital area and it is useful for controlling women's sexual desires so that they are far from evil. Based on this motivation, FGM/C makes women increasingly subordinated by placing the assumption of infertility and being responsible for the satisfaction of sexual relations with their partners. Apart from tradition, this phenomenon is also based on the strong influence of Islamic religious doctrine which generally makes parents feel compelled to fulfill it. Through a qualitative approach with descriptive-analytical methods, this research will compile and explain the data that has been obtained to be analyzed and drawn conclusions. The results of this study indicate that there is no concrete evidence that correlates female circumcision with sexual harmony, female circumcision is purely a tradition and not an Islamic teaching.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTribakti Jurnal Pemikiran KeislamanSame topicFemale Genital Mutilation/Cutting IssuesFrench-language works237,207