Human Rights Barriers for Displaced Persons in Southern Sudan
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This community-based research explores community perspectives on human rights barriers that women encounter in a postconflict setting of southern Sudan. METHODS: An ethnographic design was used to guide data collection in five focus groups with community members and during in-depth interviews with nine key informants. A constant comparison method of data analysis was used. Atlas.ti data management software facilitated the inductive coding and sorting of data. FINDINGS: Participants identified three formal and one set of informal community structures for human rights. Human rights barriers included shifting legal frameworks, doubt about human rights, weak government infrastructure, and poverty. CONCLUSIONS: The evolving government infrastructure cannot currently provide adequate human rights protection, especially for women. The nature of living in poverty without development opportunities includes human rights abuses. Good governance, protection, and human development opportunities were emphasized as priority human rights concerns. Human rights framework could serve as a powerful integrator of health and development work with community-based organizations. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results help nurses understand the intersection between health and human rights as well as approaches to advancing rights in a culturally attuned manner.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it