MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119998084 · doi:10.1177/1049731511425503

Risky Business

2011· article· en· W2119998084 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch on Social Work Practice · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDomestic violencePsychological interventionPsychologyService providerMacro levelFocus groupMacroGrounded theorySocial psychologyHuman factors and ergonomicsService (business)Poison controlQualitative researchEnvironmental healthBusinessSociologyMedicineMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: A multistage, mixed-methods study using grounded theory with descriptive data was conducted to examine factors in disclosure of intimate partner violence (IPV). Method: In-depth interviews with individuals and focus groups were undertaken to collect data from 98 IPV survivors and service providers to identify influential factors. Quantitative data were also collected on adult trauma levels and child concerns from 20 women. Results: An ecological analysis revealed that IPV disclosure occurs within a complex interplay of distinct individual and environmental considerations. Specific system level factors of the ecological framework—ontogenic, micro, exo, and macro—emerged as influencing disclosure and ultimately shaped womens’ disclosure processes. Conclusion: IPV disclosure remains a “risky business” with perceived negative outcomes outweighing benefits. Results reinforce that social work interventions need to occur at all levels of the human ecology in order to provide effective responses.

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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.004

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 head0.361
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.161 · 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