Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twenty years of conflict and four years of devastating drought have stretched taut the Afghan society. Breakdowns in support structures accelerate with each passing year, but the family continues to represent the one cohesive reality that enables most individuals to cope with the tragedies they face. Changes in attitudes toward the role of the family began to surface before the onset of the current conflict. Revolution followed by invading forces espousing ideologies championing the individual over the family, accentuated tensions in the urban capital. The rural areas reacted forcefully, rose with alarm, and strengthened traditional values, which held the centrality of the family imperative. As the fortunes of war brought ultraconservatives to the pinnacle of the governing structure, this attitude became paramount. The buffeting by these political events was exacerbated by extreme economic stress. Massive internal displacements of populations broke the traditional safety nets that protected the vulnerable. In addition, over a third of the population has lived in exile for over twenty years. Here, while refugee populations initially strengthened family bonds, social dislocations became increasingly disruptive and family cohesiveness was progressively weakened. Nevertheless, Afghans are a courageous people and determined to maintain the integrity of their basic value system in which reciprocal family rights and obligations feature so prominently. Even after peace returns it will be a long time before any future government can serve the society adequately. Therefore, it will be the traditional family support system that will provide the key to reconstruction and prosperity. This discussion examines family patterns before the war, recounts the various events that impinged upon family life during the crises, and analyzes some of the variables that will govern the rejuvenation of this badly tattered society.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".