Reimagining the Convoluted Plights of Refugee, Immigrant and Undocumented Immigrant Women: Implications for the Reauthorizations of the Violence Against Women's Act of 1994 in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Violence against women exists, is entrenched and shares commonalities among all cultures and societies, regardless of their level of civilization or the lack thereof. This act, which in some societies has now been recognized, therefore currently perceived, defined and interrogated as socially problematic is committed mostly by men, especially intimate partners and significant others, regardless of demography. Violence Against Women as an aberrant type of relationship interaction exists as a phenomenon that has largely been socially constructed, perpetrated, sustained and reproduced mostly by men. Although, and as a gender discourse, all women are recipients or potential recipients of violence perpetrated predominantly by men, however, new immigrant and refugee women remain at the apex as recipients of all sorts of violence, especially Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). Method: This study applied phenomenological interviews to explore how violence, particularly IPV against refugee women, including how the risk and propensities are further heightened and complicated by subjectivity labels. These labels include gender, race, socioeconomic, including undocumented immigrant status and language in host countries and continents, such as the United States, Canada and Europe. Results: The study found that IPV has serious ramifications for the physical and mental health of all affected women and their children, but presents a specially complicated problem for refugee and undocumented immigrant women as they strive to adapt to their host countries and environments. The study further evaluated new and existing policies, including the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and its various reauthorizations, as well as evidence-based modalities that attempt to interrogate and attenuate this aberrant interactional process. Conclusion/Recommendations: It also explored policy recommendations that can be engaged in the sustainable protection of women, already victims of violence and those at high risk, but especially new immigrant, refugee and undocumented immigrant women, who have been socially, economically, culturally and linguistically deracinated by migration and refugee creating events.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".