MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098577967 · doi:10.1177/088626001016002001

Predictors of Relationship Abuse Among Young Men

2001· article· en· W2098577967 on OpenAlexaff
Deborah Reitzel-Jaffe, David A. Wolfe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interpersonal Violence · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDomestic violenceInterpersonal violencePoison controlSuicide preventionInterpersonal relationshipInjury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsClinical psychologyStructural equation modelingInterpersonal communicationDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors tested a social learning model of men's (N = 585) relationship abuse among a sample of first- and second-year university students. As predicted, structural equation model (SEM) analyses confirmed that violence in the family of origin was associated with men's negative beliefs about gender roles and acceptance of interpersonal violence. These beliefs in turn were associated with reports of friends who also had negative beliefs about gender roles and were abusive in their relationships with peers. Having abusive friends was associated with the participants' own levels of violence in their relationships. Family-of-origin violence was also found to have a direct effect on the levels of violence in participants' own relationships with women. Participants' negative beliefs regarding gender and interpersonal violence were found to have a direct effect on their use of violence in their relationships. This model accounted for 79% of the variance in men's relationship 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations154
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interpersonal ViolenceSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207