MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066600577 · doi:10.2105/ajph.2005.067777

Dangerous Journey: Documenting the Experience of Tibetan Refugees

2006· article· en· W2066600577 on OpenAlexaff
Sonam Dolma, Sonal Singh, Lynne Lohfeld, James Orbinski, Edward J. Mills

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Public Health · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeeNepaliHuman rightsExtortionChinaMental healthThreatened speciesGeographyInternally displaced personCriminologySocioeconomicsKashmiriPolitical scienceMedicineGender studiesEnvironmental healthSociologyPopulationLawPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Since the 1950 invasion of Tibet by China, Tibetan refugees have attempted to flee into Nepal over the Himalayan mountains. We documented the experiences of a group of refugees making this journey. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 50 recent refugees at the Tibetan Refugee Transit Centre in Kathmandu, Nepal. RESULTS: Participants ranged in age from 8 to 56 years, and 21 were female. The average length of their journey from Tibet to Nepal was 34 days. During their journey, a majority of the refugees encountered authorities or became involved in altercations with Nepali Maoist groups. Most of these interactions resulted in extortion and threats of expulsion. Several Tibetans were tortured, beaten with weapons, threatened with being shot, and robbed. Three women were sexually assaulted at gunpoint. CONCLUSIONS: The refugees who took part in this study experienced physical and mental hardships and, often, human rights abuses on their journey to Nepal. International pressure is needed to prevent human rights violations and reduce potential long-term physical and mental health effects associated with this dangerous crossing.

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)0.003
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score0.845

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations40
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Public HealthSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207