MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138487640 · doi:10.1177/1524838004272463

Predicting Wife Assault

2004· review· en· W2138487640 on OpenAlexaff
N. Zoe Hilton, Grant T. Harris

Bibliographic record

VenueTrauma Violence & Abuse · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsWaypoint Centre for Mental Health Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecidivismWifePoison controlInjury preventionSuicide preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsPsychologyOccupational safety and healthPsychiatryMedicineMedical emergencyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this review, the authors examine the research evidence for the prediction of wife assault recidivism, lethal wife assault, and wife assault onset. They also review and present original data on the effect of treatment attendance on wife assault risk. Violence does not always become a stable habit, and variables associated with wife assault onset do not necessarily predict recidivism. General antisociality, psychopathy, substance abuse, and a history of assault and psychological abuse in the relationship are the most promising predictors of recidivism. Formal risk assessments, and victims' predictions, have demonstrated value in predicting recidivism. The authors review existing assessments for wife assault onset and recidivism and explain the relative merits of actuarial tools and structured clinical assessments. Because of statistical and practical limitations to predicting lethal assault, they recommend using an actuarial assessment of wife assault risk, plus attention to the strongest correlates of lethal assault when lethality is a concern.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations96
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrauma Violence & AbuseSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207