Indigenous Women’s Experiences of Lateral Violence: A Systematic Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this systematic literature review (SLR) was to methodically integrate peer-reviewed findings regarding lateral violence within Indigenous communities, with particular attention to the experiences of Indigenous women. Lateral violence describes aggression within systemically exploited groups. Interpretations from eligible articles were informed by intersectionality theory and post-colonial theory. Eligibility criteria included quantitative and qualitative peer-reviewed articles on lateral violence within Indigenous communities. Only articles that were primary sources, available to download in English, and published between 2000 and 2021 were included. Samples did not need to consist of Indigenous women exclusively, but Indigenous women had to be included. First, advanced searches were conducted in five databases (Academic Search Complete, PsycINFO, Indigenous Peoples: North America, ProQuest: Sociology Collection, and ERIC). Second, a multidisciplinary index (Google Scholar) was searched. Third, 23 peer-reviewed journals specializing in Indigenous topics were systematically searched. Lastly, forward and backward snowballing techniques were implemented. Articles were appraised following PRISMA-P guidelines. Ten articles passed the eligibility criteria. Findings suggest that lateral violence within Indigenous communities is a complex social concern, with participants disclosing both survivorship and contribution to lateral violence. Within Australian and Canadian contexts, lateral violence experiences are prevalent and persistent occurrences. Lateral violence is a controversial and taboo topic and is often silenced or normalized within Indigenous communities. For this reason, further research is warranted to raise awareness of lateral violence to disrupt the cycle of internalized oppression.
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 | 0.017 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".