MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891196755 · doi:10.1186/s12914-018-0176-0

Critical assessment of refugees’ needs in post-emergency context: the case of Malian war refugees settled in Northern Burkina Faso

2018· article· en· W2891196755 on OpenAlexaff
Idrissa Beogo, Amadou Darboe, Abimbola Adesanya, Bomar Mendez Rojas

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC International Health and Human Rights · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
FundersNational Yang-Ming UniversityOregon State University
KeywordsRefugeeInternally displaced personContext (archaeology)Nonprobability samplingPsychological interventionEconomic growthLivelihoodPovertyPolitical scienceMedicineSocioeconomicsGeographyEnvironmental healthPopulationSociologyNursingEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Empirically assessing the needs of refugees in camps is critical to the improvement of existing policies and programs that aim at enhancing their well-being. By neglecting the needs of refugees, interventions may fail to capture the complex patterns of refugees' daily lives within camps. This paper provides a comprehensive assessment of the needs of encamped Malian refugees in Northern Burkina Faso following the 2012-armed conflict. In addition to assessing the needs of Malian refugees, the study aimed to critically assess from an upstream perspective the degree of their involvement in policies and practices that are targeted towards improving their livelihood. METHODS: We took an "upstream" view on the lives of Malian refugees to identify their unmet needs. A purposive sampling strategy was employed to collect data from various media sources, including data aggregated from the website of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The most populous refugee camp (Mentao) was visited in September 2012 and in-depth group discussion and interviews were conducted with key informants, including nine camp representatives and four officials from the central and decentralized administrations. RESULTS: Media canvass combined with the UNHCR level 2 census revealed a flawed headcount of refugees, which was 205.4% higher than the real number in Burkina Faso. Although refugees live harmoniously with the natives and their security has been assured, they strongly complained about the number of unused food items distributed. Camps were distributed among humanitarian organizations leading to differential advantage and resources from one camp to another. Additionally, idleness, lack of classrooms facilities for pre-school children and lack of continuous healthcare services were major concerns raised. Further, refugees expressed limited involvement in the planning and implementation of programs that are related to their welfare. CONCLUSION: This study revealed that refugees' voices were not taken into consideration in making tailor-made programs. This calls for more comprehensive surge capacity to deal with refugees' basic needs. Further, a strong leadership from hoststate should be encouraged to offer equal opportunities to refugees regardless of their camps. Finally, an innovative strategy is needed to build a reliable database that could enhance the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and programs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.686
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.389 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC International Health and Human RightsSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207