MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115275807 · doi:10.1136/ebmh.7.3.79

Review: current therapies for men committing acts of domestic violence are of limited benefit

2004· letter· en· W2115275807 on OpenAlexaff
Harriet L. MacMillan, C. Nadine Wathen

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Mental Health · 2004
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeb of scienceRecidivismMedicineGynecologyMeta-analysisInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Babcock JC, Green CE, Robie C. Does batterers’ treatment work? A meta-analytic review of domestic violence treatment. Clin Psychol Rev 2004;23:1023–53.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q Does treatment of men committing domestic acts of violence prevent recurrence and, if so, what types of treatment work best? ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis. ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Data sources: PsycINFO searched plus hand search of bibliographies and reference sections of five reviews. Additional information was obtained from study authors. ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Study selection and analysis: Inclusion criteria: experimental or quasi-experimental studies with a comparison group (randomised control groups or treatment dropouts); victim reports or police records (criminal reports) used to measure recidivism. Effect sizes using Cohen’s d were calculated. A hierarchical fixed effects model was used to assess the impacts of report type, study design, and treatment type. ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Outcomes: Recidivism rates, treatment types. Twenty two experimental (five studies) and quasi-experimental … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DClinical%2Bpsychology%2Breview%26rft.stitle%253DClin%2BPsychol%2BRev%26rft.aulast%253DBabcock%26rft.auinit1%253DJ.%2BC.%26rft.volume%253D23%26rft.issue%253D8%26rft.spage%253D1023%26rft.epage%253D1053%26rft.atitle%253DDoes%2Bbatterers%2527%2Btreatment%2Bwork%253F%2BA%2Bmeta-analytic%2Breview%2Bof%2Bdomestic%2Bviolence%2Btreatment.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252Fj.cpr.2002.07.001%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F14729422%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.cpr.2002.07.001&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=14729422&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmental%2F7%2F3%2F79.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000188607200002&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.461
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.317 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based Mental HealthSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207