Intergenerational Trauma: A Scoping Review of Cross-Cultural Applications from 1999 to 2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been over 20 years since the publication of Danieli’s (1998) International Handbook of Multigenerational Legacies of Trauma, a seminal cross-cultural compilation examining the generational effects of mass trauma and intergenerational trauma (IGT). In the years since this book appeared, research on IGT has continued to be applied to many cultural groups, including those who have survived the Indian Residential Schools, the Khmer Rouge regime, or the Rwandan genocide. Previous reviews of IGT research have focused mainly on survivors of the Holocaust, which limits the cross-cultural application of this field of study. The purpose of this article is to provide a scoping review of scholarship published between 1999 and 2019 that aims to understand how IGT has been studied in cross-cultural applications. Overall, 29 articles were identified and reviewed. In light of the fact that cross-cultural perspectives on IGT are still emerging (Sirikantraporn & Green, 2016), the methodology and the cultural considerations described in this review can inform future cross-cultural IGT research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".