While leaving abusive male partners, women engaged in a 4 stage process of reclaiming self
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wuest J, Merritt-Gray M. Beyond survival: reclaiming self after leaving an abusive male partner. Can J Nurs Res2001 Mar; 32 : 79 –94 [OpenUrl][1][PubMed][2] QUESTION: What are the experiences of women who have left abusive male partners and have not gone back? Feminist grounded theory. Small towns and rural communities in eastern Canada. 15 Caucasian women identified by lay and professional helpers as having left abusive relationships (age range: late teens to mid 50 y; education level range: elementary school to university degree; employment status: employed, students, or receiving social assistance). All women were interviewed and initially asked to talk about how they had left their relationships. Interviews were transcribed, and concepts were identified in data analysis. Theoretical sampling and coding were used to clarify relationships between concepts and facilitate the development of a theoretical framework. In repeat interviews, emerging theories were shared with participants for discussion and refinement. Reclaiming self was the central social psychological process that emerged, in which women journeyed through 4 … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DCanadian%2BJournal%2Bof%2BNursing%2BResearch%26rft.stitle%253DCan%2BJ%2BNurs%2BRes%26rft.aulast%253DWuest%26rft.auinit1%253DJ.%26rft.volume%253D32%26rft.issue%253D4%26rft.spage%253D79%26rft.epage%253D94%26rft.atitle%253DBeyond%2Bsurvival%253A%2Breclaiming%2Bself%2Bafter%2Bleaving%2Ban%2Babusive%2Bmale%2Bpartner.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11928303%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=11928303&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F5%2F2%2F60.atom
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".