MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107331927 · doi:10.2105/ajph.2004.046409

The Association Between Length of Stay in Canada and Intimate Partner Violence Among Immigrant Women

2006· article· en· W2107331927 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ilene Hyman, Tonia Forte, Janice Du Mont, Sarah Romans, Marsha M. Cohen

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Public Health · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDomestic violenceImmigrationDemographyMedicineLogistic regressionMarital statusTelephone surveySuicide preventionPoison controlMental healthInjury preventionOccupational safety and healthEthnic groupGerontologyEnvironmental healthPsychiatryGeographyPopulationSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: We examined the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) among recent (0-9 years) and nonrecent (>/= 10 years) immigrant women in Canada to determine whether differences in IPV were associated with length of stay in Canada. METHODS: We analyzed data from the 1999 General Social Survey, a national cross-sectional telephone survey. We used weighted logistic regression analysis to examine the effect of length of stay in Canada on IPV and controlled for socio-cultural and other factors associated with IPV. RESULTS: The crude prevalence of IPV was similar among recent and nonrecent immigrant women. However, after adjustment, the risk for IPV was significantly lower among recent immigrant women compared with nonrecent immigrant women. Country of origin, age, marital status, and having an activity limitation (physical/mental disability or health problem) also were associated with a higher risk for IPV. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings have important implications for both prevention and detection of IPV among immigrant women.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score0.707

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.276 · 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.

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

Citations81
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Public HealthSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207