Empowerment and Rights-Based Social Work Interventions for Widows in Zimbabwe: A Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the patriarchal and oppressive nature of the communities, Zimbabwean widows need interventions through empowerment and rights-based approaches. This article argues that those in rural area such as Binga District are more prone to oppression and widowhood has a greater impact on them as they lack the necessary resources coupled with lack of prioritisation in professional interventions. With the aim of refocusing social work interventions on empowerment and rights of widows, the article reviews literature from various sources to discuss how social work may intervene. Literature is reviewed thematically to give structure and to ensure focus on relevant discussion points. This revealed the current perspectives on widowhood elucidating on the loopholes existing within these perspectives suggesting that a more comprehensive and context specific understanding of widowhood is needed especially taking into account the young generation of widows in Zimbabwe that needs empowerment and rights-based intervention approaches. This paper has shown that such social work interventions are possible as it is a professional and ethical requisite to intervene where people are marginalised and oppressed in an endeavor to restore their worth and dignity.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".