MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1926436967

The Gendered Nature of Domestic Violence: Statistical Data for Lawyers Considering Equal Protection Analysis

2009· article· en· W1926436967 on OpenAlexaff
Molly Dragiewicz, Yvonne Lindgren

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDomestic violenceStatistical analysisBusinessCriminologyPolitical scienceLawActuarial scienceLaw and economicsPsychologyEconomicsHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlStatisticsEnvironmental healthMathematicsMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Woods v. Horton, the California’s Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento ruled that a state Health and Safety Code section funding domestic violence shelter services specifically for battered women and their children violated equal protection. Using the strict scrutiny standard of review, the court held that under the state’s Equal Protection Clause, women and men are “similarly situated” with regard to domestic violence and, therefore, the language in the code should be revised to make state funding for domestic violence shelter services under that code gender-neutral. Woods is the first successful legal decision for the anti-feminist “fathers’ rights” movement in a series of lawsuits filed against battered women’s shelters and their funders. The case is important because it highlights the limits of formal equality review of laws that confer benefits upon women. Specifically, in its formal equality review, the court failed to sufficiently consider the gendered nature of domestic violence and the social and political context in which violence against women occurs. Women are battered much more frequently, suffer much greater injuries, and are at much higher risk of being killed by their batterer than their male counterparts, particularly at separation. Further, women who are battered are in greater need of the specific services offered by shelters because of the profoundly gendered nature of battering, wherein women and children bear substantial risk of homicide, assault, rape, and stalking following separation from an abuser, whereas men do not. Women also have fewer economic resources and often are more dependent on their abusers than men due to women’s persistently lower income and greater participation in child care. For these reasons, disparate funding for battered women’s shelters should survive a strict scrutiny challenge because women and men are not similarly situated with regard to domestic violence. Because the risks faced by women and men following separation are essentially different, shelter services tailored to women and their dependent children are narrowly designed to address a compelling state interest in decreasing separation assault, assisting battered women in safely leaving abusers, and decreasing preventable homicides. By failing to acknowledge the important role that gender plays in domestic violence, the Woods decision set a precedent that threatens to erode the already inadequate laws and services specifically created in response to the quantitatively and qualitatively different types of violence faced by women, men, and children.\nWe conclude that domestic violence is uniquely gendered because it is a manifestation of discrimination against women. Failure to recognize the causal link between domestic violence and gender threatens to severely undermine formal equality because it fails to address the underlying problems that allow domestic violence to persist and does not address the victims’ experience within the context of societal discrimination. Considering domestic violence in the broader context of gender inequality, it becomes clear that men and women are not similarly situated. Rather, domestic violence is a systemic political and social problem within which women are uniquely situated when compared to men

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.177
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.571
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.934

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1770.571
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0110.013
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.010
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations45
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207