MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366549725 · doi:10.1057/s41271-023-00407-8

International humanitarian law violations in northern Uganda: victims' health, policy, and programming implications

2023· article· en· W4366549725 on OpenAlexaff
Anastasia Marshak, Teddy Atim, Dyan Mazurana

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Public Health Policy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Conflict Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersLeir FoundationDepartment for International DevelopmentDepartment for International Development, UK GovernmentGovernment of the United Kingdom
KeywordsInternational humanitarian lawPsychosocialPublic health lawPovertyCriminologyPopulationHealth policyPolitical sciencePsychologyLawHealth careHuman rightsMedicineInternational healthPsychiatryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experience of serious violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) results in complex physical disability and psychosocial trauma amplifying poverty and multi-generational trauma and impeding long-term recovery. We use data from a representative sample of victims in the case Prosecutor V. Dominic Ongwen brought before the International Criminal Court. Thirteen years after the 2004 massacre, the victims were significantly worse off than the general war-affected population that did not experience serious violations of IHL. The differences in health and wellbeing persisted for individuals and their households, including children born after the massacre. The victims have significantly lower availability of appropriate health services and medications, including significantly greater distance to travel to these services. These findings call attention to the needs of people having experienced IHL violations, for provision of physical and emotional trauma care to allow for recovery, and better understanding of the short- and long-term impacts of IHL violations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.177
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Public Health PolicySame topicHealth and Conflict StudiesFrench-language works237,207