Report of the FIGO Working Group on Sexual Violence/HIV: Guidelines for the management of female survivors of sexual assault
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence and provide guidelines on the management of sexual violence against women, specifically, rape. OUTCOMES: Outcomes evaluated include effectiveness of post-rape care provision. EVIDENCE: The MEDLINE database was searched for articles published up to December 2008 on the topic of post-rape care and expert opinion was sought from the Sexual Violence Research Initiative membership. In addition, a search was performed for English-language protocols on Google. One Spanish language protocol was considered in the development of the guidelines. VALUES: The evidence was evaluated by authors and reviewers of the South African Department of Health's sexual assault curriculum, and by members of the FIGO Working Group and recommendations were made according to the guidelines developed by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: Implementation of the recommendations in this Guideline should result in more appropriate management of survivors of sexual violence and better physical and psychological outcomes.
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 | 0.044 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".