Battered but bold: Sri Lankan Tamil refugee war experiences, camp challenges and resilience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The civil war prompted many Tamils to flee Sri Lanka as refugees. Several researchers have documented psychological distress and trauma among Sri Lankan Tamil refugees, but the literature lacks sufficient discussion of resilience among this population. Although Sri Lankan Tamil refugees have experienced conflict and loss, they have also demonstrated positive adaptation following these challenges. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach The present study used an ecological approach, in which the effect of the environment on a person is regarded as significant, to explore resilience among Sri Lankan Tamils living in refugee camps in India. Findings Through a qualitative investigation of refugee experiences of war and camp life, the authors developed a conceptual framework for understanding individual and collective resilience among refugees. Research limitations/implications Additionally, the results of this study need to be interpreted with caution because participants were camp refugees, which may limit the applicability of these results with refugees who live in different settings. Practical implications The current research results show that intervention programs should have multiple components, including trauma intervention to address the individual and community psychological and psychiatric effects of war and migration experiences and psychosocial interventions to address individual, family, community dynamics and daily stressors. Social implications The study participants stated that Sri Lankan Tamil refugees are using their resilience traits including will power, positive talk, practical solutions, social support, religion and social networks to remake their broken souls. Originality/value Future studies need to be conducted with other refugee group to validate the findings of the paper.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".