From Al Hol to Hope: Navigating Return and Reintegration Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
About This Series 4About This Report 5 Key findings• The inability to procure or renew civil documentation continues to severely impact the return trajectories of Iraqis returning to their country after time in Al Hol.Respondents from female-headed households in Jeddah-1 Rehabilitation Centre (J-1) remain significantly more likely to report that their family members are missing documentation, especially children.While there has been considerable investment in documentation support in the Centre, governorate policies and practices, in particular changes or lack thereof in administration and judges at the local level, appear to present continued challenges for those trying to acquire or renew documents in some areas of return.• It appears that finding a sponsor is getting easier for J-1 residents.A large majority of residents no longer cite difficulties finding a sponsor as a barrier to leaving the Centre.The type of support offered by sponsors, however, continues to vary enormously, ranging from simply satisfying the minimum requirement of providing transport from the Centre to the area of return to broader support (e.g., help facilitating community acceptance).• Amongst surveyed J-1 residents, there has been an increase in reported support networks (financial and non-financial) and optimism in how they anticipate they will be received by their community upon return.The latter may be driven by feedback from previous returnees who have had positive experiences, but are thought to vary by gender, governorate, and family background.• Reported participation in activities and services in J-1 has increased.In particular mental health and psychosocial support, and skills training have been accessed and considered useful.Considerable challenges remain regarding the participation of women residents, as well as frustrations with the provision and quality of education and medical services.4 Background About MEACHow and why do individuals exit armed groups, and how do they do so sustainably without falling back into conflict cycles?These questions are at the core of UNIDIR's Managing Exits from Armed Conflict (MEAC) initiative.MEAC is a multi-year, multi-partner collaboration that aims to develop a unified, rigorous approach to examining how and why individuals exit armed conflict and evaluating the efficacy of interventions meant to support their transition to civilian life.MEAC seeks to inform evidence-based programme design and implementation in real time to improve efficacy.At the strategic level, the cross-programme, cross-agency lessons that will emerge from the growing MEAC evidence base will support more effective conflict resolution and peacebuilding efforts.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".