Exploring research on the coping strategies of black survivors of homicide victims: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Black people are disproportionately impacted by homicide. However, despite this over-representation, research is limited relevant to how black individuals, families and communities cope with the chronic traumatic devastation of homicide. This scoping review will provide an amalgamation of the current literature regarding the coping strategies of black survivors of homicide victims to inform future health and social work practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this scoping review, Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage framework will be used to succinctly gather and synthesise previous literature and identify gaps in research relevant to black survivors of homicide victims. This method will allow for a focused process of chosen pertinent databases. The seven databases include OVID (MEDLINE and PsycINFO), ProQuest (Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, International Bibliography of Social Sciences), EBSCO (Africa Wide, The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature). The seven databases were chosen for their relevance to the topic of coping with homicide for black individuals, families and communities. All members of the research team will screen the abstracts and full texts of the literature based on the inclusion criteria. The findings will be charted and synthesised using a qualitative thematic analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The articles chosen for this review will be gathered from peer-reviewed journals and scholarly search engines. Due to this research project's nature, ethics approval is not warranted. The results of this scoping review will inform culturally responsive approaches to research, policy and practice for first responders (eg, law enforcement, emergency medical technicians) and providers (eg, mental health clinicians, physicians and faith-based communities) who frequently render services to black survivors of homicide victims. The results will be shared through journal article publications, academic and community conferences, as well as professional training opportunities for practitioners who support Black individuals, families and communities.
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 | 0.113 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.014 |
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".