MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4388205868 · doi:10.4324/9781003415213-11

Sisters of Peace

2023· book-chapter· en· W4388205868 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sarah Tabassum

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUnited Nations High Commissioner for RefugeesYork UniversityPorticus Foundation
KeywordsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“Sisters of Peace” is a mental health and psychosocial support program to support Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. Designed by the BRAC Institute of Educational Development in Bangladesh, the model employs young women from the local community as para-counselors who are trained rigorously in psychosocial support skills such as active listening, empathy, maintaining confidentiality, and practicing a non-judgmental attitude. Under the supervision of psychologists and mental health experts, these para-counselors have been providing therapeutic services to Rohingya children and families in Bangladesh since 2017. During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the model was modified to use virtual modalities for the recruitment and training of para-counselors as well as training, supervision, monitoring, and providing support to clients. Internal process evaluations showed that the model provided valuable support to families and that the shift to remote training was effective in improving the skills of para-counselors. This model shows how mental health psychosocial support services can be set up and quickly expanded in a humanitarian context using limited resources.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0910.016

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics→French-language works237,207→