MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abused Women's Perspectives on the Criminal Justice System's Response to Domestic Violence

2007· article· en· W2135466494 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

VenuePsychology of Women Quarterly · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriminal justicePsychologyCriminologyDomestic violenceEconomic JusticeSuicide preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlInjury preventionOccupational safety and healthSocial psychologyPolitical scienceMedical emergencyLawMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study used Q methodology to better understand battered women's views about the criminal justice system (CJS). Fifty-eight abused and formerly abused women, representing a broad range of experiences, were involved in the study. Participants sorted 72 statements about domestic violence and the CJS according to how strongly they agreed with each one in relation to the other statements. A small subset of women was interviewed to help illuminate the emerging perspectives. Five perspectives that are new in both their complexity and in their substance were identified: (1) The CJS can be trusted; (2) The CJS has potential, but is ultimately disappointing to victims; (3) Victims should have input into the CJS and be sure they want to use it; (4) The CJS cannot protect women and can make matters worse; and (5) The CJS should be used for her safety, for his rehabilitation, and for justice despite its problems.

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)0.007
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.344 · 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