Exploring Dynamics of Abusive Lesbian Relationships: Preliminary Analysis of a Multisite, Qualitative Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents preliminary results from a multisite, qualitative study on violence in lesbian relationships. A framework for conducting community-based, empowerment research that draws on theories of community psychology, feminism, and postmodernism is presented. The study was designed to understand the dynamics of abusive lesbian relationships and social service providers' responses to the abuse. Results from 80 in-depth interviews with lesbians who have experienced relationship violence are examined with a particular focus on a pattern of first relationships being abusive and a theme of shifting power dynamics. Analysis of focus group discussions with 45 feminist service providers (e.g., counselors, shelter workers, social workers, healthcare providers) reveals the difficulties in assessing the power dynamics of abusive same-sex relationships and in developing appropriate responses when relying on heterosexually gendered models developed to address men's violence against women. The preliminary results present implications both for how we theorize and research this form of violence, and for improving the practices and policies of social services that work with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered communities.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it