MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407038168 · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-75301-5_11

Women’s Experiences in Education in Turkmenistan

2025· book-chapter· en· W4407038168 on OpenAlexaff
Aknur Orazova, Aliya Kuzhabekova

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave studies in gender and education · 2025
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Education, and Development Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyPolitical scienceGender studiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper explores the experiences of women in education in the Central Asian country of Turkmenistan. The exploration is based on the review of the relevant policies, reports, statistics, and scholarly research, as well as on the data from written accounts of women who had experiences in the education system of the country. We first provide a quick overview of the situation with gender equality generally and in education more specifically during the Soviet and post-Soviet periods. We then use data from the written accounts to explore in greater detail the unique experiences of women in education and the way the experiences are shaped by a variety of cultural and societal beliefs. The primary criteria of eligibility for participation in the written accounts was being a woman holding at least a certificate of completion of secondary education in Turkmenistan. The common themes emerging from the participants’ insights included the various challenges faced by women in education, the pervasive family influence, and the irreconcilable differentiation between what is considered masculine and feminine behaviors. In addition, we revealed the women’s awareness about their agency and the importance of empowerment.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0200.012
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave studies in gender and educationSame topicGender, Education, and Development IssuesFrench-language works237,207