Denial, Minimization, Partner Blaming, and Intimate Aggression in Dating Partners
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although countering denial, minimization, and externalization of blame is a key component of most interventions for individuals who have been abusive in their intimate relationships, these attributions have only seldom been the focus of empirical investigation. Using a sample of 139 male and female university students, this study examined the associations between self-reported minimizing and blaming attributions and the perpetration of physical, sexual, and psychological aggression against an intimate partner. For men, minimization of conflict and partner blame were associated with self-reported perpetration of intimate partner aggression, even after controlling for socially desirable responding and relationship satisfaction. In contrast, women's aggression was associated only with partner blame. Discussion focuses on overlap with similar areas of research, gender differences in minimization and blaming, and on potential directions for further empirical work on the associations of intimate aggression, relationship dissatisfaction, and attribution.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it