MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047176004 · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0010004

Should Health Professionals Screen All Women for Domestic Violence?

2004· editorial· en· W2047176004 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ann Taket, C. Nadine Wathen, Harriet L. MacMillan

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Medicine · 2004
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDomestic violenceMedicineTask forceHealth professionalsOccupational safety and healthSuicide preventionPoison controlFamily medicineEnvironmental healthHealth carePolitical scienceLawPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND TO THE DEBATE: The US and Canadian task forces on preventive health recently declared that there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against routine universal screening of women for domestic violence. Yet some experts argue that routine enquiry is justified.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.098
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.098
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0370.060
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.005

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.366 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations65
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS MedicineSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207