MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111101804 · doi:10.5539/ass.v10n7p234

Personality Traits and Severity of Wife Abuse among Iranian Women

2014· article· en· W2111101804 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Seyed Mehdi Motevaliyan, Siti Nor Yaacob, Rumaya Juhari, Mariani Mansor, Mahmood Baratvand

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroticismAgreeablenessBig Five personality traitsPsychologyOpenness to experienceConscientiousnessPersonalityClinical psychologyExtraversion and introversionPersonality Assessment InventoryStratified samplingPsychiatrySocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main purpose of this study was to determine the relationships between personality traits and severity of wife abuse among Iranian women in Tehran city in Iran. The study involved 398 women who sought treatment at 4 selected hospitals by using multistage stratified sampling technique. Conflict Tactic Scale (CTS2) and Five-Factor Personality Inventory (NEO-FFI) were used to measure severity of wife abuse and personality traits respectively.Findings showed that out of 398 women studied, 42.5% received minor abuse and 43.5% received severe abuse. Severity of total wife abuse was positively related to neuroticism personality and negatively related to extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness. However, no significant relationship was note for total wife abuse and openness personality. The result of multinomial logistic regression indicated that neuroticism personality trait was a significant predictor of minor and severe total abuse. The results of the current study highlighted the importance of personality traits in explaining the severity of wife abuse in Tehran, Iran. Therefore, strategies to prevent and intervene cases of abuse among wives in Tehran, Iran should take into consideration individual’s personality traits.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.299
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations12
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207