Testimonial Smothering of the South Asian Experience: Gender Role Socialization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research paper uses narrative research analysis to examine the impacts of gender role socialization in the lives of self-identified South Asian men and women. This paper is divided into two parts; part one analyzes how gender role socialization impacts self-identified South Asian men and women differently, and part two studies the reluctance of the South Asian community to speak about their experiences due to over stigmatization and stereotyping, also known as “testimonial smothering” (Dotson, 2011). Gender roles and testimonial smothering (Dotson, 2011) are examined through a lens of Critical Race Theory, Critical Race Feminism, and ‘Colonial-Smothering’. Three pairs of differently gendered siblings residing in Ontario went through a process of dyadic-interviewing to share their personal narratives and truths. Their unique experiences highlighted the deep-rooted legacies of patriarchy, colonialism, orientalism, and whiteness that continue to control the gender narratives of South Asian folks. This research points towards fundamental improvements needed to be made within South Asian communities to provide equitable opportunities for both men and women, as well as a dire need for the South Asian community to reclaim their narratives from the clutches of white supremacy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".