Service providers’ Perception of Black Immigrant Domestic Violence Survivors’ Use of Support Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The accessibility, acceptance, and effectiveness of domestic violence (DV) services and resources are crucial for survivors, but previous research indicates that Black immigrant survivors face barriers in receiving and using support from formal services. The purpose of this study was to investigate how service providers perceive the available services and resources for survivors of domestic violence, particularly for Black immigrant survivors, and assess the adequacy of these services. This study aims to explore the following questions: 1. How do service providers perceive the adequacy and accessibility of support resources and services for Black immigrant survivors of DV in Calgary? 2. To what extent do existing services and supports meet the needs of Black immigrant survivors of DV, as perceived by service providers? A hermeneutic phenomenological study was conducted with 10 domestic violence service providers in Calgary who were interviewed in-depth to address these questions. The findings revealed that while numerous services and support are available for domestic violence survivors, Black immigrant survivors face barriers in accessing these services due to limited culturally relevant services, language barriers, transportation issues, financial issues, and lack of training among professionals. This research significantly contributed to the body of knowledge and recommendations to facilitate positive experiences for Black immigrant survivors receiving formal services. Overall, the study highlights the need for culturally sensitive services and training for professionals to support Black immigrant survivors of domestic violence better. The implications for research, practice, and policy are discussed in the study.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".