MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029606594 · doi:10.1177/1524838011404253

Cumulative Abuse: Do Things Add Up? An Evaluation of the Conceptualization, Operationalization, and Methodological Approaches in the Study of the Phenomenon of Cumulative Abuse

2011· review· en· W2029606594 on OpenAlexaff
Kelly Scott‐Storey

Bibliographic record

VenueTrauma Violence & Abuse · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperationalizationConceptualizationPhenomenonPsychologyPremiseEmpirical evidencePoison controlSocial psychologyMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For women, any one type of abuse rarely occurs in isolation of other types, and a single abusive experience is often the exception rather than the norm. The importance of this concept of the cumulative nature of abuse and its negative impact on health has been well recognized within the empirical literature, however there has been little consensus on what to call this phenomenon or how to study it. For the most part researchers have operated on the premise that it is the sheer number of different types of cumulating abuse experiences that is primarily responsible for worse health outcomes among women. And although this simplistic 'more is worse' approach to conceptualizing and operationalizing cumulative abuse has proven to be a powerful predictor of poorer health, it contradicts growing empirical evidence that suggests not all victimizations are created equal and that some victimizations may have a more deleterious effect on health than others. Embedded in abuse histories are individual and abuse characteristics as well as other life adversities that need to be considered in order to fully understand the spectrum and magnitude of cumulative abuse and its impact on women's health. Furthermore, given the long-term and persistent effects of abuse on health it becomes imperative to not only evaluate recent abusive experiences, but rather all abuse experiences occurring across the lifespan. This review highlights and evaluates the conceptual, operational, and methodological challenges posed by our current methods of studying and understanding the phenomenon of cumulative abuse and suggests that this phenomenon and its relationship to health is much more complex than research is currently portraying. This paper calls for the urgent need for interdisciplinary collaboration in order to more effectively and innovatively study the phenomenon of cumulative abuse.

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)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.012
Science and technology studies0.0020.009
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.457
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.011 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations194
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrauma Violence & AbuseSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207