Bibliographic record
Abstract
Happy families do not break up, and while every unhappy family may be unhappy in its own way, violence and various forms of abuse are common features of separated families. Indeed, research evidence from large-scale community or national surveys has established that domestic violence is a pervasive and common problem in all intimate relationships. A general population survey in Canada found that 8.6 percent of women and 7 percent of men reported some kind of physical abuse from a current or ex-partner within the last five years. Women reported much more severe abuse. Levels of abuse and violence are particularly high in intimate relationships between younger people. In one major study in New Zealand, domestic conflict was present in 70 percent of the intimate relationships of twenty-five-year-olds, with this conflict ranging from minor psychological abuse to severe assault. It is therefore unsurprising that a history of violence and abuse should be common among families who have separated. The pervasiveness of violence and abuse among parents who have separated is evid e nt in Australian research. Sheehan and Smyth, reporting on interviews with a general population of separated parents, found that 65 percent of women and 55 percent of men indicated that they had experienced violence against them within the criminal law definition of assault. Fifty-three percent of women and 24 percent of men reported violence or threats of violence that induced fear. Fourteen percent of women, and 3 percent of men reported injuries resulting from violence that required medical treatment.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".