The Role of Social Programs in Saudi Arabia to Prevent Domestic Violence, Compared to Developed Countries: A Systematic Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prevention of domestic violence should be taken seriously, for it affects families, which are the foundation of communities. The purpose of this review is to investigate and synthesize data from studies to compare the interventions and roles played by social programs in preventing domestic violence in Saudi Arabia with those in some developed countries, notably the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. The aim of the review is to identify the differences of the role played by the social programs in Saudi Arabia and those of developed countries, so as to provide information to social programs in Saudi Arabia on how better to prevent domestic violence. The study searched for literature material from Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA), Cochrane, PubMed, Google Scholar, JSTOR, and grey literature from international websites such as the United Nations, World Health Organization and other databases. Studies that reported on social programs that prevent domestic violence in Saudi Arabia and developed countries were included in this review. The search provided 4568 research studies, though only 20 of these met the right criteria and were reviewed. Despite there being social programs in Saudi Arabia that prevent domestic violence, there is a need for more research on how to eradicate this form of violence.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".