A Qualitative Examination of How Somali Young Adults Think About and Understand Violence in Their Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Violence prevention efforts must take into consideration the potentially stigmatizing labels associated with violence, and how youth perceive different types of violence in their communities. Somali communities and individuals in North America have at times been labeled as at-risk for violence, with two notable examples being gang violence and ideologically motivated violence, or violent radicalization. Little is known, however, about how the youth themselves think about and understand these types of violence in their communities. In this article, we seek to answer the following questions: How do Somali immigrants think about violence in their communities, and the stigma related to this violence? and What are the implications of these perceptions/beliefs for violence prevention? Data are drawn from two qualitative studies conducted as part of an ongoing community-based participatory research (CBPR) collaboration between academic partners and Somali communities in three cities in North America. Study 1 consists of nine focus groups ( n = 36, male only), and Study 2 consists of in-depth interviews ( n = 40, male and female). All participants are Somali young adults living in North America. Overall, radicalization to violence is seen as a remote and irrelevant issue in the Somali community. Participants distance themselves from the idea of radicalization to violence and from those who participate in radical acts or held such beliefs. In contrast, gang involvement is characterized as a major problem for Somali communities, and a product of the marginalization associated with being a refugee in Canada or the United States. Findings suggest that prevention efforts focused on gangs are more likely to be acceptable to communities than those focused on violent extremism.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".