MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7043399594

Sex-selective Infanticide and the “Missing Females” in China and India

2006· article· en· W7043399594 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueKent Academic Repository (University of Kent) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicEnzyme Structure and Function
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipContext (archaeology)Variety (cybernetics)ChinaRace (biology)Section (typography)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Awarded the Adele Mellen Prize for Distinguished Contribution to Scholarship This book contains a collection of twelve essays about the practice of infanticide in different parts of the world and written by women from different academic disciplines, with an introductory chapter that analyzes the origins and development of scholarship on this topic. The book’s essays are divided into four parts that open with brief introductions. Two of these sections are based on common themes of infanticide, and the other two on the applications of similar methodologies. Part one contains essays that highlight the persistence of race and inequality in shaping the context of infanticide in such diverse terrains as the Caribbean, Australia, and the American South. The second section demonstrates how governments in England, Canada, and the Soviet Union used their authority to control women’s behavior by instituting policies they thought would deter women from committing infanticide. The last two sections contain a variety of essays about infanticide in Africa and the Americas, but are similar in applying the case study method of analysis. The final part demonstrates the effectiveness of using sex ratios and computer data analysis to study infanticide in Asia and western Europe. The book concludes with a lengthy, multidisciplinary bibliography of the infanticide literature.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.460
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.181 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKent Academic Repository (University of Kent)Same topicEnzyme Structure and FunctionFrench-language works237,207