A Systematic Scoping Review of Indigenous People’s Experience of Healing and Recovery from Child Sexual Abuse: A Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Child sexual abuse is a form of violence that occurs across nations and cultures. Collective efforts are being made to address this issue within many Indigenous communities. In Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities have expressed the need for cultural models of healing child sexual abuse. A preliminary exploration of the relevant literature shows a lack of synthesis with regard to the current evidence base. This protocol outlines the methods and background for a scoping review that aims to explore and collate the broad scope of literature related to healing from child sexual abuse within an Indigenous context. The proposed review utilises a 'population, concept, and context structure' from the Joanna Briggs Institute to explore the broad scope of the literature within a scoping review framework. The target population is Indigenous survivors of child sexual abuse, including Indigenous populations from six distinct regions: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples from Australia; Māori peoples from Aotearoa (New Zealand); First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples from Canada; Native American peoples from North America; Native peoples from Alaska; and the Sámi peoples of the Sápmi region in Northern Europe. The concept within the review is healing from an Indigenous perspective, which includes a broad range of processes related to both recovery and personal growth. The contexts explored within this review are any context in which healing from child sexual abuse can occur. This may include processes related to disclosure and accessing services, specific interventions or programs for survivors of child sexual abuse, as well as broader non-specific healing programs and personal experiences of healing without intervention. The scoping review will use search strings with broad inclusion and exclusion criteria to capture the potential breadth of perspectives. The search will be conducted across several academic databases and will also include an extensive search for grey literature. This protocol establishes the proposed benefits of this scoping review.
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 | 0.096 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.070 | 0.011 |
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".