Conflict, trauma and mental health: how psychological services in Northern Ireland address the needs of victims and survivors: a series of systematic reviews (Report 2)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are five literature reviews in this section 1. An overview of systematic reviews of psychological interventions for PTSD related to war, terrorism and civil conflict; 2. A systematic review of the association between war-related parental post-traumatic stress on family functioning; 3. A systematic review of psychological and pharmacological treatments for comorbid PTSD and substance use disorders related to war and/or civil conflict; 4. A systematic review of the role of cognitive factors in the maintenance of complicated grief following conflict-related bereavement; 5. A rapid review of treatments and psychological Interventions for treating war and civil conflict-related comorbid chronic pain and PTSD. All reviews were undertaken by a sub-group of members of the research team and each review followed the same systematic approach to searching the literature, quality assessing selected papers for each review and reporting findings. Inclusion/exclusion criteria varied according to the purpose and aims of the review. Reviews 1, 3 and 5 only include treatment/intervention studies. The review of treatments for PTSD (review 1) did not include studies with refugees and asylum seekers because this group present with a wide range of psychosocial/ legalistic needs that often require multi-agency responses. However, such studies were not excluded from the complex grief review (review 4) because the purpose was to try to locate as many cognitive predictors as possible. Therefore, the wider the range of participants the more variables the review would belikely to locate.
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 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".