Meta-Analysis of Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict: Implications for a Women, Peace, and Security Agenda
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the 2000s, there has been a rapid growth on the research on sexual violence in armed conflict (SVAC). While this body of work generated a wealth of insights, much of the research remains siloed and discrete. This research agenda can benefit from broader evaluation and testing for competing explanations. The authors conduct a meta-analysis of the field using the SVAC dataset. Examining the available data from 1989 to 2011, the authors evaluate the various explanations for the drivers of SVAC put forth in the scholarship. Their study provides a systematic evaluation of the SVAC research agenda and aims to expand its scope and provides starting points for policymakers and practitioners to build targeted interventions against SVAC in support of the Women, Peace, and Security Agenda. The authors find that a majority of the research on SVAC are robust in the face of alternative explanations, indicating that the field is strong and in good health for policy utilization.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it