MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017207511 · doi:10.1590/1809-4503201400030006

Female homicide in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

2014· article· en· W2017207511 on OpenAlexaff
Gabriela Tomedi Leites, Stela Nazareth Meneghel, Vania Noemi Hirakata

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Brasileira de Epidemiologia · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomicideDemographySocioeconomic statusAggressionMedicinePoison controlEcological studyInjury preventionGeographyEnvironmental healthPsychiatryPopulationSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to assess the female homicide rate due to aggression in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, using this as a "proxy" of femicide. This was an ecological study which correlated the female homicide rate due to aggression in Rio Grande do Sul, according to the 35 microregions defined by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), with socioeconomic and demographic variables access and health indicators. Pearson's correlation test was performed with the selected variables. After this, multiple linear regressions were performed with variables with p < 0.20. The standardized average of female homicide rate due to aggression in the period from 2003 to 2007 was 3.1 obits per 100 thousand. After multiple regression analysis, the final model included male mortality due to aggression (p = 0.016), the percentage of hospital admissions for alcohol (p = 0.005) and the proportion of ill-defined deaths (p = 0.015). The model have an explanatory power of 39% (adjusted r2 = 0.391). The results are consistent with other studies and indicate a strong relationship between structural violence in society and violence against women, in addition to a higher incidence of female deaths in places with high alcohol hospitalization.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.903

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Citations39
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Brasileira de EpidemiologiaSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207