INFORMAL SOCIAL CONTROL OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: RESULTS FROM A CONCEPT MAPPING STUDY OF URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS
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
How the neighborhood environment relates to intimate partner violence against women has been studied using theories applied originally to general violence. Extending social disorganization and collective efficacy theories, they apply a traditional measure informal social control that does not reflect behaviors specific to partner violence. We conducted a concept mapping study in two New York City neighborhoods, to understand what behaviors neighborhood residents might enact to prevent partner violence and how feasible and effective residents believed them to be. Results revealed a range of “preventive intervention behaviors.” Cluster analysis revealed that these behaviors grouped into four general areas, corresponding to the victim, perpetrator, community, and formal systems. Preventive intervention behaviors rated by participants as most feasible focused on the victim, whereas those rated most effective involved formal systems. Results have theoretical and practical implications for future research and programs to engage neighbors and neighborhoods in intimate partner violence prevention.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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