Living Conditions and the Path to Healing Victim’s Families after Violence in Southern Thailand: A Case Study in Pattani Province
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the living conditions of victims’ families from the unrest in Pattani, Thailand, and to evaluate the success of the “healing victims’ project”. A total of 284 victim families in Pattani province were interviewed during January to October 2007. The informants were most commonly the victims’ wife (73%), were on average 42.2±12.8 years of age. The majority of victims were male (95.8%), were the head of the family (84.5%), of working age (45.9 ± 12.4). 51.4% were Muslim. Most were married (85.9%) and 88.5% of the victims had children. The most common educational level was primary (48.8%) and the most common occupation was agriculture (19%). Most were shot (88%) and 65.1% died. Of all victims, 19.4% incurred asset damage. There were a median of 3 (0 - 9) dependents per family. Aspects of family life that deteriorated most severely after the assault were their sense of personal security and total value of their assets (70.4%) followed by stress (66.6%) and financial problems (65.9%). Aid was received from either government or private sectors by 96.5% of families but 64.1% reported that it fell short of needs. The most urgent need for aid was financial (40.6%), scholarship for children (22.6%) and personal security and assets (16.6%). In practice the most frequent aid received was financial (92.7%). There were 732 children from 284 victim families. The average age was 17.1 ± 10.4 years and 54.2 % were female. Although most of victims’ families received some aid, there is a need to monitor system and comprehensive and swift assistance for those affected.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".