“Where Should I go? Who can I cry to?” The Perspectives of South Asian Immigrant Women In Edmonton who have Experienced Domestic Violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is about ten South Asian immigrant women survivors of domestic violence in Edmonton, Alberta. The study explores their experiences and perspectives on domestic violence and the challenges they faced in accessing services and supports in Edmonton. The research questions that guided the study were (a) What are the lived experiences of South Asian immigrant women who have experienced domestic violence, and how does culture influence their access to services and support systems? (b) What are the perspectives of South Asian immigrant women survivors of domestic violence on the formal services and supports they received? and (c) What services and interventions would these women like to have received? A qualitative research design and an interpretive phenomenological approach were used to explore the research questions. In-depth face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted with ten South Asian survivors of domestic violence, and the data were analyzed by using thematic analysis. The findings highlight that the women experienced multiple forms of abuse and faced several intersecting barriers that delayed their access to services and supports for domestic violence. Cultural beliefs and practices were only one of the multiple intersecting variables that influenced their access to services and supports. The women’s experiences with formal services and support providers were mainly negative, and the women described the domestic violence support system as fragmented, uncoordinated, and overextended. The women’s experiences and recommendations call for an overall systemic change in this system so that it can meet the needs of racialized minority women experiencing violence. The study concludes by making recommendations for changes to this system.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".