MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7137992522 · doi:10.7202/1123561ar

Ukrainian Female War Refugees in Poland: Trauma and Emancipation

2025· article· en· W7137992522 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Agnieszka Gromkowska-Melosik, Aleksandra Boroń

Bibliographic record

VenueNarrative Works · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeeNarrativeChoseInterpretation (philosophy)HomelandStorytellingPeriod (music)Narrative inquiry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is part of narrative research that explores how storytelling helps individuals understand the world and how they interpret the stories they share. The study, conducted by the authors between April and May 2022, involved sixteen women who were war refugees from Ukraine, aged between 29 and 52. The participants came from various regions of Ukraine, and all had children, with the oldest being 15 and the youngest 3. Most of the women were married, some had partners, and one was a widow. They left their homeland at different times, between March 3 and 23, 2022, and by the time of the study, they had been in Poland for a period ranging from four weeks to three months. Given the length of the article, the authors chose to focus on two specific contexts of the research: trauma and emancipation. The analysis and interpretation of the interviews include excerpts from the participants' statements. These statements are transcribed, treated as research data, and interpreted through narrative analysis to uncover meanings related to the socio-cultural context. The research method used positions the participants as creators of narratives, which allows them to express themselves as experts in their own experiences.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venueNarrative WorksSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207