MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800006388 · doi:10.7146/torture.v28i1.105475

Towards a contextually appropriate framework to guide counseling of torture survivors in Sub-Saharan Africa

2018· article· en· W2800006388 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Craig Higson-Smith, Gillian Eagle

Bibliographic record

VenueTorture Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAfrican Population and Health Research CenterInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsTorturePsychosocialRehabilitationMedicineFocus groupPsychologyPsychotherapistHuman rightsNursingPolitical scienceSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: If the right to rehabilitation is to become a meaningful reality for torture survivors in sub-Saharan Africa, it is necessary that counseling practice be responsive to the contextual and cultural demands of the region. Recent reviews of evidence-based practice with torture survivors are discussed with a focus on those approaches developed and/or tested with torture survivors in sub-Saharan Africa. METHODS: The results of a mixed methods study of ongoing torture rehabilitation work are reported. This study incorporated a review of 85 case files of torture survivors treated at torture rehabilitation centers in three countries in sub-Saharan Africa, and in depth interviews with fifteen counsellors and fourteen clients at those same centers. Quantitative data are presented in tabular form supported by uni- and bi-variate statistical analyses as appropriate. Qualitative data are presented in terms of themes identified through emergent coding. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Help-seeking torture survivors in this region are a diverse and highly symptomatic group, often struggling to survive with their families in precarious circumstances and under ongoing threat. In addition to incorporating key aspects of existing evidence-based practice, counselors also use a range of psychosocial approaches to assist torture survivors to protect and support their families in the face of seemingly overwhelming life challenges. We propose that more systematic methodologies that facilitate the inclusion of the voices of clients and clinicians in ongoing international debates relating to evidencebased practice with torture survivors will enhance the application of such practices in diverse contexts.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.306 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTorture JournalSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207