Turning Points for Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence
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
Understanding why and how perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) change their behavior is an important goal for both policy development and clinical practice. In this study, the authors investigated the concept of "turning points" for perpetrators of IPV by conducting a systematic review of qualitative studies that investigated the factors, situations, and attitudes that facilitated perpetrators' decisions to change their abusive behavior. Two literature databases were searched and six studies were found that met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Most included participants from batterer intervention programs (BIPs). The data indicate that community, group, and individual processes all contribute to perpetrators' turning points and behavioral change. These include identifying key incidents that precede change, taking responsibility for past behavior, learning new skills, and developing relationships within and outside of the BIP. By using a qualitative systematic review, the authors were able to generate a more complete understanding of the catalysts for and process of change in these individuals. Further research, combining quantitative and qualitative approaches, will be helpful in the modification of existing BIPs and the development of new interventions to reduce IPV.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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