MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097989469 · doi:10.1177/0093854812438160

Self-Reported Childhood Physical Abuse and Perpetration of Intimate Partner Violence

2012· article· en· W2097989469 on OpenAlexaff
Marc T. Swogger, Zach Walsh, David S. Kosson, Sarah Cashman‐Brown, Eric D. Caine

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminal Justice and Behavior · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsDomestic violencePoison controlPsychologyPsychopathyInjury preventionPhysical abuseSuicide preventionChildhood abuseHuman factors and ergonomicsClinical psychologyOccupational safety and healthPsychological abuseChild abusePsychiatryMedicineMedical emergencySocial psychologyPersonality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whereas considerable evidence links childhood physical abuse with later perpetration of intimate partner violence (IPV), research to identify moderators of this relationship will increase our understanding of which victims of childhood abuse are at risk for later IPV. The present study examined dimensions of psychopathy as moderators of the relationship between physical abuse in childhood and perpetration of IPV in a sample of criminal offenders. Results indicated that, among individuals with higher levels of impulsive-irresponsible (i.e., Lifestyle) traits of psychopathy, childhood physical abuse was associated with later perpetration of IPV. Findings have implications for the propensity toward IPV perpetration among individuals who have experienced childhood physical abuse.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminal Justice and BehaviorSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207