MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810476609 · doi:10.1177/2158244018784342

Support Programs for Women Survivors of Sexualized Gender-Based Violence From African Conflict Zones: A Contextual Review

2018· review· en· W2810476609 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Philomina Okeke‐Ihejirika, Sophie Yohani, Claire McMenemy

Bibliographic record

VenueSAGE Open · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Security, and Conflict
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
FundersKillam Trusts
KeywordsPsychological interventionContext (archaeology)Intervention (counseling)Global mental healthMental healthPoliticsHuman rightsPolitical scienceGender studiesDevelopment aidSociologyCriminologyEconomic growthPsychologyPsychiatryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing attention paid to sexualized gender-based violence (GBV) against women in African conflict zones by the international community is a welcome development to many stakeholders, including scholars, policy makers, human rights advocates, international organizations, and nongovernmental organizations. Little is known, however, about the experiences of survivors who end up in Western host countries, such as Canada, as newcomers. Much less is known about their interactions with Western-based mental health care intervention models and the assumptions and understandings they hold about survivors’ histories and life circumstances before, during, and after migration. We argue, therefore, for studies that place the experiences of survivors in a broader social and political context—as one crucial facet of culturally effective interventions. This review of the state of knowledge reveals the gaps in literature, identifies areas for future research, and contributes to the search for effective intervention measures that could enhance survivors’ transition and integration into Western societies.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.204
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.222 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAGE OpenSame topicGender, Security, and ConflictFrench-language works237,207