Les stratégies de recherche d’aide des femmes victimes de violence conjugale : le cas des femmes référées aux CLSC par les policiers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article deals with formal and informal resources used by women victims of conjugal violence in their search for help. It explores the type of resources used and their relationship with a number of factors such as the socio-economic characteristics of the women and, the nature and duration of the violence which they have suffered. Prior to reporting on the results of a specific case of formal resources utilization, this article presents a review of the literature on the process of seeking help, then it focuses on the major role played by the social support network. Also, it reviews the major studies dealing with the strategies used by women victims of conjugal violence in obtaining help. Finally, the article reports on the main results of a study conducted in the context of a pilot project to bring help to victims of conjugal violence by the police and the Local Community Services Centers (CLSC) of the Montreal Urban Community. This pilot project started in 1990 has since been extended to the entire territory covered by the Montreal Urban Community. The results of this study show that the majority of the women referred by the police officers did receive help at the CLSC. However, only one third of the women referred did meet with a social practioner following the referral. Also, it was observed that when the period between the referral and the first contact by the social practitioner was short, the women more easily accepted to meet with a worker from the CLSC. A third of the women referred already had a file with the CLSC, which indicated that the violence problem was known in one case out of four. Meeting with a CLSC worker was found to provide a greater diversity in the type of help received.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".