Violence against Women: A Study of Underlying Factors in Tehran Forensic Center 2001
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p><strong>BACKGROUND &amp; OBJECTIVE:</strong> Intimate partner violence (IPV) against women is a global human rights and public health concern. The WHO Multi-Country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence documented the widespread nature of IPV with lifetime prevalence of physical and/or sexual parter violence among ever-partnered women in the fifteen sites surveyed ranging from 15% in Ethiopia province to 71% in Japan.Across the world, violence against women is a major threat to their physical and mental well-being. This violation of the most fundamental human rights usually takes the form of family or domestic violence.</p><p>This study was conducted to determine the violence against women in Tehran in forensic center in 2001.</p><p><strong>METHODS: </strong>Data for this cross-sectional study were collected from women referring to Tehran Forensic Center, with a view to obtaining a realistic picture of violence to women.</p><p>Data were gathered on 120 subjects randomly selected women who completed questionnaires and interview.</p><p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>The women in this study had presented with wounds and injuries inflicted by their husbands. These women had been referred to the Center by family courts to complete legal formalities concerning injury diagnosis and duration of treatment.</p><p>The main factors underlying family violence were examined from five different aspects: behavioral and educational problems (79.2%), financial strain (54.2%), and interference by the husband’s family (39.2%), sexual problems (13.3%), and differences in culture and social class (10%).</p><p><strong>CONCLUSION: </strong>Factors found to have an accelerating or interfering role included the woman’s age and the couple’s education level. However, many women declared that several factors were contributing simultaneously to the problem of violence.</p>
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".