Intersections of Women as Survivors: Disclosures of Violence and Global Research Standards in Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Global guidelines on VAWG research prioritize safety-first approaches to discuss experiences of violence with survivors. Guidelines recommend that survivors only be interviewed in confidential and private interviews. However, little is known about why and how women choose to disclose experiences of violence in focus group settings. Utilizing survivor quotes and reflexive notes from the qualitative components of the first national prevalence surveys on VAWG in Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago, we reflect on women’s decisions to disclose experiences of violence in focus groups. Our results illustrate that women’s choice to speak out about previous experiences of violence and in some cases, irrespective of the guidelines provided for focus group discussions, aligns with the unapologetic nature of Caribbean feminist organizing in the region. Identifying as a survivor of gender-based violence holds different meanings for women based on when the relationship occurred and the sense of insight and empowerment they gained and therefore guides which information and where women feel comfortable disclosing. Researchers should ensure safety-first approaches are followed and also support women who choose to disclose experiences of violence outside of confidential interviews. Focus groups can be areas where women disclose violence and should be addressed through preparation rather than as an error in ethical research practices.
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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".