MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1044170722 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.39.4.557

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) in Zambia: An Examination of Risk Factors and Gender Perceptions

2008· article· en· W1044170722 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Roger Y. Klomegah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWifeDomestic violenceResidencePsychologySocial psychologyContext (archaeology)DemographyGender studiesSociologySuicide preventionGeographyPoison controlMedicinePolitical scienceEnvironmental healthLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abuse of women has reached epidemic proportions in Africa and the literature has revealed that, internationally, between 10% and 52% of women experience this phenomenon. This study examines some social risk factors associated with wife abuse, as well as gender perceptions of wife beating in Zambia, East Africa. Using the 2001/02 Zambia Demographic and Health Survey data, married women, age 15-49, were selected for analysis (N = 4731). The dependent variable in the study is wife abuse and explanatory variables are age, education, employment status, place of residence, beliefs about wife beating, and religion. The data show that more wives than husbands are likely to justify wife-beating under various circumstances with “going out without telling him” being the predominant belief for justifying beating. The data also revealed that in a multivariate context, wives with younger husbands, duration of marriage, place of residence, cultural beliefs about wife-beating, and membership in non-Orthodox religions are some of the risk factors that relate to intimate partner violence in Zambia. Implications of the study relate to strategies for dealing with this social problem, some of which are suggested in the paper.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations55
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207