MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128477949 · doi:10.1177/0020715210386155

A cross-national analysis of physical intimate partner violence against women

2010· article· en· W2128477949 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yunus Kaya, Kimberly J. Cook

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Comparative Sociology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of North Carolina Wilmington
KeywordsDomestic violenceEmpowermentContext (archaeology)GlobalizationWomen's empowermentDemographic economicsFractionalizationPsychologyPolitical sciencePoison controlSocial psychologySociologySuicide preventionEconomic growthEconomicsGeographyEthnic groupMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the cross-national correlates of intimate partner violence against women with a sample of 40 developed and less developed countries. Specifically, we analyze physical intimate partner violence against women during the 12 months prior to data collection, using data from nationally representative surveys. In the process, we examine the evidence for three explanations we discern from the literature: empowerment of women, cultural context (i.e. religion, institutions), and globalization. The results of our analyses provide strong support for the empowerment of women explanation, which draws from feminist concerns regarding socio-economic status of women, and reveal some effect of cultural context and globalization. Female labor force participation in non-agricultural sectors and women’s secondary school enrollment decrease the likelihood of intimate partner violence while increasing total fertility rate signals more partner violence. Religious fractionalization and dependence on high-income countries as export partners also increase the likelihood of intimate partner violence against women.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.666

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.397 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations44
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Comparative SociologySame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207