Field Feasibility and Acceptability Testing of Action-Based Psychosocial Reconciliation Approach in a Post-Genocide Rural Community in Rwanda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Interpersonal/psychosocial reconciliation is highly prioritized in post-Genocide Rwanda. Despite the need, empirically sound strategies have been extremely scarce. The proposed study is a segment of a broader services-research effort to develop, evaluate, and implement a novel and empirically supported interpersonal/psychosocial reconciliation approach termed Action-Based Psychosocial Reconciliation Approach (ABPRA), that is authentically founded on Rwandan people’s lived experiences of reconciliation. Methods/Design: The proposed study consists of two major steps. The purpose of step 1 is to develop and empirically validate a set of outcome measures, termed the psychosocial reconciliation impact scales module (PRISM) to assess beneficial impacts native to ABPRA. We will employ hermeneutic phenomenological analysis (van Manen, 2016) of pilot interview data to generate item pool. The purpose of step 2 is to field-test the delivery of ABPRA in Rwanda to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention, exploring and illuminating potential procedural uncertainties in conducting a larger-scale evaluation of ABPRA. We will follow the guidance on pilot study by Thabane et al. (2010). Discussion: The study is an essential step to advance the project to a full-scale experimental evaluation of ABPRA. The project holds the possibility of making available and accessible, an empirically supported and meaningful approach to conflict resolution, genocide/war prevention and peacebuilding in Rwanda and other war/conflict-affected regions around the globe.
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 | 0.028 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".