Participant and narrative characteristics associated with host community members sharing experiences of peacekeeper-perpetrated sexual exploitation and abuse in the Democratic Republic of Congo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Peacekeeper-perpetrated sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA) in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) account for 36% of the global reports of formal SEA allegations to the UN between 2007 and 2021. However, formally reported SEA represents only a fraction of that which occurs, and community experiences of peacekeeper-perpetrated SEA are likely different than those reflected in official UN documents. Methods Using mixed-methods, cross-sectional data collected in the DRC in 2018, we used descriptive analysis and multivariate Poisson regression with robust error estimates to examine the participant and narrative characteristics associated with sharing an experience about peacekeeper-perpetrated SEA. Results Participants in Bukavu (adjusted relative risk (aRR) 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.91) and Kalemie (aRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.81) were less likely to share narratives about sexual interactions, while civilian UN personnel (aRR 1.16, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.34) were slightly more likely to be implicated in narratives about sexual interactions. Narratives in which the outcome was deemed fair to the woman/girl were more likely to be about sexual interactions (aRR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.12). Both the regression analysis and the participants’ interpretation of the shared narratives illustrated the significant role poverty played in SEA, suggesting that the outcomes of sexual interactions may have been deemed fair since affected women/girls were perceived to have benefited financially/materially. Conclusion There is significant variation between host communities in the likelihood of sharing narratives about SEA, which could prove useful for informing more targeted SEA prevention initiatives. Narratives about sexual interactions with UN personnel were more often deemed to have fair outcomes for the affected women/girls, likely related to ongoing poverty in host communities and perceived financial/material gain. These findings highlight how extreme poverty may impact perceptions around informed consent as well as fairness and require further study. Perceptions around fair outcomes would disincentivise formal reporting, which needs to be considered when devising community-based complaint networks.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".