Exploring Reproductive Violence in a Moroccan Context: A Stakeholder informed Delphi Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Reproductive violence (RV) is not currently recognised as a legally or epistemically distinct category of gender-based violence. While reproductive coercion (RC) as a subset of RV is gaining increased recognition within the literature, studies are predominantly focused on RC as a form of intimate partner abuse. This is despite evidence that actions taken to impede reproductive autonomy can be perpetrated at family, community, and even state level. The current study, based in Morocco, firstly aimed to examine how RV is influenced by social and cultural context. We then use this knowledge to develop a series of item statements for inclusion in a newly developed RC and RV screening tool. Methods A Delphi study was conducted with an international panel of 11 experts in the field of gender-based violence prevention and sexual and reproductive health. The study consisted of two rounds, with 90% of respondents completing all two surveys. Experts were asked to rate 33 item statements relating to forms of reproductive coercion and violence that women in Morocco may face across a five-point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Participants were encouraged to clarify their rating with open text responses. A 75% agreement rate was used as threshold for consensus. Results A consensus was reached for items describing the different forms of reproductive coercion and violence that women in Morocco may face. Statements largely consisted of three categories: interpersonal, institutional, and social norms. Conclusions Using contextualised screening tools for reproductive coercion and violence that consider context specific gender and social norms allows for a deeper understanding of gender-based violence in Morocco. Following further testing, this screening tool has the potential to increase the visibility of RV, inform more targeted and effective interventions, and strengthen both screening and monitoring and evaluation. The current study represents a crucial first step in the development of such a screening tool.
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 | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".