MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1924355637

Domestic violence. Incidence and prevalence in a northern emergency department.

2004· article· en· W1924355637 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jane Cox, Gary W. Bota, Mary Carter, Jennifer A Bretzlaff-Michaud, Vic Sahai, Brian H. Rowe

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsSudbury Regional Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency departmentIncidence (geometry)MedicineDemographyProspective cohort studyOccupational safety and healthInjury preventionPoison controlSuicide preventionCohortMedical emergencyEmergency medicinePediatricsFamily medicinePsychiatryInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the incidence and prevalence of domestic violence (DV) against women presenting to emergency departments. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study to determine health status and exposure to DV. SETTING: Hospital emergency department in urban northern Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Random sample of women older than 16 presenting to the emergency department for any reason. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographic variables, exposure to DV. RESULTS: Of 1800 potential subjects, 577 (32%) did not fit inclusion criteria. Of the remaining 1223, 983 (80%) agreed to participate. Mean age was 41, 135 of participants (14%) were aboriginal, and 546 (56%) were married. Overall, 725 (74%) had current partners. Incidence of DV resulting in emergency department presentation on the day of assessment was 2%. Of women with partners, 66 (9%) had previously been threatened or injured by those partners. Lifetime prevalence of DV was 51%; physical DV was experienced by 40%. One-year prevalence was 26%. CONCLUSION: Incidence of DV was lower than expected; prevalence of DV was high.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.455

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations22
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207