Using Grounded Theory to Generate a Theoretical Understanding of the Effects of Child Custody Policy on Women's Health Promotion in the Context of Intimate Partner Violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women's health is frequently influenced by social and structural factors, largely beyond women's control, and often entrenched in public policy. Although health is acknowledged to be socially determined, the ways that social conditions affect health are rarely explicated. Grounded theory is a useful method for discovering how structural conditions influence patterns of behavior. We used grounded theory to generate a theoretical understanding of how justice system policy and services related to child custody influence health promotion processes of women and their children after leaving abusive male partners/fathers. In two diverse Canadian provinces, we interviewed single mothers who had left abusive partners as well as frontline workers and policymakers in the justice system. We identified the key dimensions of policy and services that influence the ways in which women and their children promote their health in the context of varying levels of ongoing intrusion as information, eligibility, accessibility, timeliness, human resources, safety, and diversity. In this article, the interplay between theses policy and service dimensions and women's health promotion after leaving abusive partners is discussed and suggestions are made for strengthening "healthy" custody policy.
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 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".