MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035735778 · doi:10.1177/1098611104264495

Police and Victim Perspectives on Empowerment of Domestic Violence Victims

2006· article· en· W2035735778 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePolice Quarterly · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpowermentPsychological interventionSituational ethicsCriminal justiceIntervention (counseling)PsychologyCriminologyDomestic violenceEconomic JusticePoison controlSocial psychologySuicide preventionPolitical scienceMedicineLawMedical emergencyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Police have increasingly regarded intervention for and offering assistance to domestic violence victims as an appropriate criminal justice intervention. However, variability in police responding as demonstrated by victim satisfaction surveys has been evident. Using Stark's (1996) suggested standard of victim empowerment to determine the efficacy of police interventions, this study sought to determine from both police and victim perspectives, what dimensions of police interventions were central to victim empowerment. A total of 63 victims and 28 police were interviewed. Results yielded three dimensions of empowerment along which police responses varied: integrated team versus isolated unit functioning, deserving versus undeserving victim perspective, and proactive versus pro–forma responses. Police attitudes, situational factors, and victim characteristics influenced the extent to which responses were experienced as empowering or disempowering by victims.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.841

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.301 · 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