Resilience to structural violence: an exploration of the multisystemic resources that enable youth hope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Youth in structurally violent environments emphasise hope when explaining their resilience. Even so, the multisystemic resources that enable hope (also over time) are relatively underreported for African young people. In response to this gap, we report a qualitative study that identified the hope-enabling resources that contributed to the resilience of two samples of African youth aged 15–24 and living in the township of eMbalenhle, South Africa. Using Draw-Write-Talk methodology, the 2017 sample ( n = 30; M age = 18.6; 56% male youth) and 2018 sample ( n = 7; M age = 18.4; 85% female youth) generated visual and narrative data of their experiences of hope enablers. A thematic analysis showed that a multisystemic mix of contextually relevant resources typically explained youth capacity for hope in the face of structural violence. Four resources informed this mix: personal strengths, faith-based beliefs, positive personal relationships, and tangible sources of inspiration. This contextually relevant mix, and its putative durability over time, has implications for how psychologists and policymakers support youth in structurally violent contexts to be hopefully resilient.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".