“if we don’t regroup, hunger will kill us…”: a qualitative study on measures of physical distancing during covid-19 among internally displaced persons in Burkina Faso
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study contributes to the body of knowledge on IDPs in the context of security crisis related to terrorism. Very little research has been done on covid-19 amongst IDPs in Africa and this is one of the first studies in Burkina Faso. Our diversified sample allowed us to consider the discourses of humanitarian actors working with IDPs, but also the discourses of IDPs in a context of aggravated health and security crisis. The challenges encountered by IDPs in implementing physical distancing and the coping strategies have been documented. It showed some possible solutions that decision-makers could use in order to facilitate the appropriation of this measure by IDPs. This is a contribution to the field of applied human and social science research They will help to anticipate solutions in the event of a resurgence of covid-19 cases. In the current context, where the spread of the disease seems to be under control, concerted action should now be taken in the event of the detection of a case of covid-19 in the various IDP sites.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; 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".