Recent trends in intimate partner homicide risk in North America: Cohabiting and married victims
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cohabiting with a partner, rather than living in a legal marriage, has been documented as a significant risk factor for intimate partner homicide. This study used national U.S. homicide data from 1990-2005 to examine changes in risk patterns. The results showed that both male and female cohabiting victims experienced a steep decline in intimate partner homicide rates. Such was the strength of this decline that by 2005 cohabiting couples were no longer at higher risk than married couples. A similar, though weaker, trend was found in Canada between 1991 and 2006. It was hypothesised that this convergence of cohabiting and married homicide rates was due to cohabiting and married populations becoming more similar in terms of socio-demographic variables. Contrary to expectation, over time, the U.S. and Canadian cohabiting populations remained younger, poorer, less educated, and less conventional, than their married counterparts. This suggests that demographic changes were not responsible for the decline in cohabiting homicide rates. Further research is required to determine whether changes in union characteristics may have driven the decline in cohabiting homicide risk.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 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 teacher head, 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".