MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033413384 · doi:10.1080/15564886.2011.607403

Prevalence and Risks of Physical and Sexual Violence against Women by Nonintimates: An Exploratory Study across Nine Countries

2011· article· en· W2033413384 on OpenAlexaff
Véronique Jaquier, Bonnie S. Fisher, Holly Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueVictims & Offenders · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespondentSexual violencePsychologyDomestic violencePoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsExploratory researchInjury preventionSuicide preventionDemographyMultivariate analysisSocial psychologyCriminologyEnvironmental healthMedicinePolitical scienceSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research on violence against women involving nonintimates is a relatively understudied area. This research note presents data for nine countries participating in the International Violence Against Women Survey (IVAWS), including estimates of physical and sexual violence perpetrated by acquaintances and strangers and multivariate models assessing the effects of respondent age, source of income, current relationship status, and previous victimization experiences. Results show that there is considerable variation among countries in the prevalence and predictors of nonintimate violence. This suggests that women in different countries may be exposed to nonintimate violence under different circumstances. These results underscore the need for in-depth research to better understand the broader cultural, social, and economic contexts in which women are exposed to a range of violent experiences.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations10
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictims & OffendersSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207