Parental Resilience in Contexts of Political Violence: A Systematic Scoping Review of 45 Years of Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Families suffer in particular ways during the violence and targeted deprivation of freedom and resources within political violence (PV), which includes wars, armed conflicts, and military occupations. While evidence is accumulating about the disproportionate impacts of PV on parents and children, we lack a clear, globally integrated understanding of how families suffer-and survive-PV. There is an urgent need to synthesize existing work to refine our understanding of parental experiences within PV-with particular attention to both how PV creates suffering for parents, and how parents strategize, caring for their families within the most horrendous of circumstances. In this systematic scoping review, authors explore how political violence impacts parenting. Using predetermined search strategies and inclusion criteria (peer-reviewed, empirical articles, published in English), searches within multiple databases, and tests of interrater reliability, 112 articles (quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method) were identified. Authors organized and coded findings, determined common themes, and built a conceptual model connecting and integrating findings. Findings point to two crucial areas of parenting within PV: parenting efficacy and parenting practices, demonstrating how these are simultaneously compromised by and amplified within PV. Results uncover how much parenting within PV is intertwined with parental psychological and social well-being, and that parents cope with a variety of internal and external resources, including culture, community, religion, activism, flight, and emotional and logistical reconfiguration. Implications include that, within and after PV, interventions must focus on parental well-being, as well as the social and political situatedness of parents.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 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".