Advisory Board Immigrant and Refugee Women Survivors’ Experiences of Intimate Partner Violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of culturally safe intimate partner violence (IPV) services for immigrant and refugee women is strongly tied to understanding how IPV and its concomitants can be different for immigrant and refugee women. A lack of knowledge will contribute to inefficient, inappropriate, and less effective services. This study draws upon the expertise and wisdom of immigrant/refugee IPV survivors who serve on a survivor-only advisory board for IPV programming. The dialog of 35 attendees who participated in immigrant/refugee IPV survivor advisory board meetings was analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis to generate themes that captured their lived experiences of IPV, IPV support (i.e., their journey and recovery process), and their wish list for what they hoped would have been different. Three major themes and nine subthemes were generated (Theme 1: Experience of Intimate Partner Violence Is All-Encompassing; Theme 2: Immigrant and Refugee Survivors Experience Gaps and Therefore Feel Lost When Seeking or Receiving Support; Theme 3: Empowerment Is a Core Need). This study’s results study contribute to a more nuanced understanding of IPV for immigrant and refugee women (including how they tend to experience and navigate IPV differently than locally born ethnic/racial minoritized individuals) and provide valuable information that could help service providers and policy-makers develop and implement more culturally safe and effective intervention and prevention strategies.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".