MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048667751 · doi:10.1097/yco.0000000000000088

Prevention of domestic violence against women and children in low-income and middle-income countries

2014· review· en· W2048667751 on OpenAlexaff
Erminia Colucci, Ghayda Hassan

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Psychiatry · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDomestic violenceSocioeconomic statusLow and middle income countriesMental healthSuicide preventionPoison controlDeveloping countryPolitical scienceEconomic growthOccupational safety and healthPublic healthMedicineEnvironmental healthPopulationPsychiatryEconomicsNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Violence against women and children is increasingly recognized as an important and urgent public health, social and human rights issue cutting across geographical, socioeconomic and cultural boundaries. There is a large and growing body of literature that demonstrates the negative impact of such violence on the victim's mental and physical health, as well as several other consequences on them, their families and communities. However, this literature for the most part comes from the so-called 'developed countries'. This review, at the opposite, focused on current literature on prevention of domestic/family violence against children and women in low and middle income countries (LMICs). RECENT FINDINGS: Establishing effective prevention programmes for domestic violence against women and children in LMICs requires an understanding of the sociopolitical, economic and cultural settings and a multilevel collaboration among various stakeholders. SUMMARY: This review confirms the lack of research in the so-called 'developing countries' and provides suggestions for further research and prevention efforts in this setting.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.611
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.354 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations31
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in PsychiatrySame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207