La question de la symétrie dans les enquêtes sur la violence dans le couple et les relations amoureuses*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present discourse on symmetry of violence between partners originates in the results of surveys primarily using one type of instrument, the Conflict Tactics Scales (Straus, 1979). An examination of the critiques that have been formulated and of the justifications given by the authors of the instrument suggests that symmetry is a result of a specific representation of action constructed by the instrument. Comparing the protocols and results of four large surveys in Canada, England and the United States, the authors underline the importance of taking into account severity in the measurement of violence. Le theme de la symétrie de la violence dans le couple et les relations amoureuses se fonde sur les enquêtes réalisées principalement avec un instrument, le Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS) (Straus, 1979) ou d'instruments similaires. L'examen de l'argumentation méthodologique du CTS signale que celui-ci construit une représentation particulière de Taction violente basée exclusivement sur le geste physique. À partir d'une comparaison des plus importantes enquêtes nationales sur le sujet, cet article soutient l'importance d'une mesure de la violence qui tienne compte de la gravité des situations.
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 | 0.020 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".