MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7110306138 · doi:10.4102/ajod.v14i0.1810

Scoping review on technology-facilitated gender-based violence against women with disabilities and LGBTQI+ persons in low- and middle-income countries

2025· article· en· W7110306138 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Journal of Disability · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrey literatureHarmInclusion (mineral)PovertyIntersection (aeronautics)AbleismPoison controlDomestic violence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV) refers to acts of harm enabled or intensified through digital platforms, negatively affecting women’s rights, safety and well-being. Women with disabilities are at heightened risk because of the intersection of ableism and gender inequality. However, limited evidence exists on how TFGBV manifests and impacts this population, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Objectives: This scoping review aimed to map existing research on TFGBV against women with disabilities in LMICs, identify common patterns and explore intersections with broader structural vulnerabilities. Method: Using the PRISMA-ScR framework, we searched seven academic databases and grey literature published between 2010 and 2024. Eligible studies focused on women in LMICs and involved TFGBV through consumer digital technologies. Data were charted and deductively analysed using adapted frameworks from prior TFGBV literature. Results: From 4738 records screened, 43 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most explored how digital tools enabled violence with offline consequences. None focused exclusively on women with disabilities, though some included them. Technology-facilitated gender-based violence impacts were wide-ranging, with LGBTQ+ individuals, rural populations and low-income groups facing intersecting risks. Conclusion: This review highlights a gap in research on TFGBV among women with disabilities in LMICs. Future studies must centre intersectional, inclusive and survivor-informed approaches. Contribution: This review adopted an intersectional approach, recognising how disability, gender, poverty and other marginalised identities compound TFGBV risks. It highlights the lack of focused research on TFGBV against women with disabilities in LMICs and the need for inclusive, survivor-informed research and policy responses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0230.025
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Journal of DisabilitySame topicDisability Rights and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207