MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009840399 · doi:10.1177/1088767902239243

Losing Control

2003· article· en· W2009840399 on OpenAlexaffabout
Holly Johnson, Tina Hotton

Bibliographic record

VenueHomicide Studies · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomicideIntimate partnerDomestic violencePsychologyPoison controlBivariate analysisHuman factors and ergonomicsSuicide preventionFemicideOccupational safety and healthInjury preventionCriminologySocial psychologyDemographySociologyMedicinePolitical scienceMedical emergencyLawStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using data from Statistics Canada’s Homicide Survey, this article explores the dynamics of intimate partner homicides in Canada between 1991 and 2000 among a range of relationships. The authors’ findings are consistent with previous studies that document an elevated risk of intimate partner homicide for women who have separated compared to women in intact relationships. Using bivariate and multivariate techniques, the authors find that a number of incident characteristics set apart homicides that occur in intact and estranged intimate relationships for women but not for men. Similarly, this study finds that the circumstances and motivational contexts of intimate homicides differ for female victims depending on relationship type (legal marriages, common-law unions, and other intimate relationships). These results support recommendations from Dawson and Gartner (1998) that researchers continue to develop conceptually meaningful categorizations of intimate partner homicides.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.305
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0590.008

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Citations177
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHomicide StudiesSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207