MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, DOVE, AND DIVORCE MEDIATION

2006· article· en· W2040194546 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

VenueFamily Court Review · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDoveCategorical variableMediationPsychologyPsychological interventionMental healthDomestic violenceRisk assessmentSocial psychologyApplied psychologyClinical psychologySuicide preventionPoison controlMedicineEnvironmental healthPsychiatryComputer scienceComputer securityBusinessSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary objective of this article is to describe DOVE, a 19‐item instrument designed to assess and manage the risk of domestic violence between partners during and following their participation in divorce mediation. Assessing risk, more specifically how DOVE can be used to assess risk, is described first. The resulting risk scores (TOTDOVE) are used to assign individuals to risk categories. Problems associated with using categorical, frequency, and probability risk assessment formats in interpreting and communicating risk are discussed in the second segment of the article. A dual, categorical/probability format is advocated. Managing risk using Safety Plan interventions that are linked with risk category and predictor subscores on control, substance abuse, anger, relationship problems, mental health problems, and conflict is covered in the final segment.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.587
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.308 · 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