MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1867242366 · doi:10.1177/0886260515600875

One Size Doesn’t Fit All: Dating Abuse Against Women From the Perspective of South Asian Muslim Youth in Canada

2015· article· en· W1867242366 on OpenAlexaffabout
Amanda Couture‐Carron

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interpersonal Violence · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntersectionalityScholarshipContext (archaeology)Perspective (graphical)Sociocultural evolutionPsychologyDomestic violenceSexual abuseSocial psychologyPoison controlSuicide preventionGender studiesDevelopmental psychologySociologyMedicineGeographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the growing recognition of intersectionality in the field of domestic abuse, scholarship on dating abuse is still limited by its lack of attention to cultural context. To begin to address this gap, this article presents findings from an exploratory qualitative study of 11 South Asian Muslims' perceptions of behaviors/actions in dating relationships that they identify as being potentially experienced and/or understood differently by South Asian Muslim women. In particular, the participants identify (a) exposure to parents/community, (b) behaviors of a sexual nature, (c) controlling behaviors, and (d) psychological, emotional, and/or verbal behaviors/abuse as being experienced and understood in unique ways by South Asian Muslim women. By connecting these perceptions to the cultural context of South Asian Muslims, these findings support an intersectionality perspective by suggesting sociocultural variations in the meanings assigned to behaviors and/or actions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score0.740

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interpersonal ViolenceSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207