Determining the Reasons Behind Women’s Vulnerability During Disasters: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: According the publishled of manuscripts, women have been one of greatest victims of disasters. Due to the importance of the prevention, recognition of vulnerable groups and their empowerment how to deal with disasters, the objective of this study was to recognize the need of wemen in diseaster situations in from the psychological point of view. Materials and Methods: A qualitative study, through semi-structured interviews by 33 experts in the various fields of psychology, psychiatry, psychiatric Nursing, social care and welfare, social medicine and gender studies and experts in disasters, was conducted. Snowball Sampling in the provinces of Tehran, Isfahan and Mashhad in year (2016) was conducted. In order to achieve sample transferring capability, samples with maximum variety were selected. Also, to ensure reliability and verifiability of interviews, transcripts and codes were presented to each participant. The gathered data was analyzed using content analysis method. The ethical considerations for qualitative studies were observed in this study. Results: The results of this study determined 4 main codes and 30 sub-codes for psychological reasons behind women’s vulnerability during disasters. The sub themes related to opinions of women being vulnerable included physiological reasons (hormonal factors, emotional factors and lower physical capabilities), social reasons (weaker social roles, lower social support, incorrect beliefs and social roles, conflict between tradition and modernity, Patriarchal culture, lower social, economic and literacy status, religious beliefs and policies and laws) and psychological reasons (mental disorders, emotions and maternal instincts). Conclusion: Most interviewees believed that the reason behind women’s vulnerability during disaster depends on psychological and other social and biological factors. How to cite this article: Shooshtari Sh, Abedi MR, Bahrami M, Samouei R. Determining the Reasons Behind Women’s Vulnerability During Disasters: A Qualitative Study. J Saf Promot Inj Prev. 2017; 5(1):51-8 .
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".