MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131587363 · doi:10.1080/07399330802523774

Strategies Used by Rural Women to Stop, Avoid, or Escape From Intimate Partner Violence

2008· article· en· W2131587363 on OpenAlex
Thelma Riddell, Marilyn Ford‐Gilboe, Bevery Leipert

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

VenueHealth Care For Women International · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDomestic violenceContext (archaeology)Qualitative researchPsychologyPoison controlSuicide preventionSocial psychologyHuman factors and ergonomicsInjury preventionOccupational safety and healthEnvironmental healthMedicineSociologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this mixed methods study we examined the strategies rural women use to deal with intimate partner violence (IPV). The Intimate Partner Violence Strategies Index (IPVSI) was used to analyze results from a sample of 43 rural women who had left abusive partners. Qualitative interviews then were conducted with a different sample of nine rural women to explore their perspectives about the findings and their impressions of the influence of rural culture and context on women's experiences of IPV. Findings exposed the degree to which social control acts as a key determinant of health for rural women exposed to IPV.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.433
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.339 · 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