Resistance, Reluctance, and Readiness in Perpetrators of Abuse Against Women and Children
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
Perpetrators of abuse and violence against women and children are often reluctant participants in intervention programs. They frequently fail to attend scheduled appointments, are sometimes openly hostile to intervention staff, and often judge program materials as irrelevant to their situation. Recognizing this problem, researchers and practitioners have begun to develop models and tools to more appropriately assess and intervene with reluctant clients. Unfortunately, the resulting proliferation and inconsistent application of terms and theories have led to considerable confusion in characterizing reluctant clients and have significantly hampered research on strategies that may be helpful to better meet the needs of this client group. The purpose of this review is to help standardize the definition and measurement of treatment reluctance as it applies to violence perpetration and to review evidence for the importance of these aspects of client reluctance to intervention. Recommendations for assessing reluctance in research and clinical practice are also provided.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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