Intimate partner violence among Canadian women with activity limitations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) in the previous five years among women reporting activity limitations (AL). DESIGN AND SETTING: A community based, representative telephone survey of Canadians aged 15 and over. AL was assessed by the question: "Does a long term physical or mental condition or health problem reduce the amount or the kind of activity that you can do at home, at school, at work or in other activities?" Response categories were: often, sometimes, or never. PARTICIPANTS: 8771 women who had a current/former partner of whom 1483 reported AL. MAIN RESULTS: IPV was reported more often for AL (often or sometimes) compared with no AL women (emotional abuse (27.1, 26.4 v 17.7%, p<0.0001), physical-severe (7.3, 6.7 v 3.6%, p<0.0001), sexual abuse (3.5, 3.6 v 1.4%, p<0.0001)), or any IPV (30.5, 27.8 v 19.6%, p<0.0001). Adjusting for age, marital status, education, income, employment, children in the household, Aboriginal or visible minority status, place of birth, urban or rural residence, region of Canada, time in current residence, and religious attendance, AL women had higher odds of IPV (adjusted odds ratio: AL often=2.12; 95% CI: 1.64, 2.74; AL sometimes: OR=1.64; 95% CI:1.40, 2.29). CONCLUSION: These findings call for increased recognition of violence that occurs in the lives of women with AL. This community based study suggests that abuse among those reporting AL is high. Women with AL represent a high risk group to be targeted in terms of IPV prevention and intervention.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".