An exploratory study on the consequences and contextual factors of intimate partner violence among immigrant and Canadian-born women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare immigrant and Canadian-born women on the physical and psychological consequences of intimate partner violence (IPV), as well as examine important sociodemographic, health and social support and network factors that may shape their experiences of abuse. METHOD: National, population-based, cross-sectional survey conducted in 2009. PARTICIPANTS: 6859 women reported contact with a current or former partner in the previous 5 years, of whom 1480 reported having experienced emotional, financial, physical and/or sexual IPV. Of these women, 218 (15%) were immigrants and 1262 (85%) were Canadian-born. RESULTS: Immigrant women were less likely than Canadian-born women to report having experienced emotional abuse (15.3% vs 18.2%, p=0.04) and physical and/or sexual violence (5.1% vs 6.9%, p=0.04) from a current or former partner. There were no differences between immigrant and Canadian-born women in the physical and psychological consequences of physical and/or sexual IPV. However, compared with Canadian-born women, immigrant women reported lower levels of trust towards their neighbours (50.7% vs 41.5%, p=0.04) and people they work or go to school with (38.6% vs 27.5%, p=0.02), and were more likely to report having experienced discrimination based on ethnicity or culture (18.8% vs 6.8%, p<0.0001), race or skin colour (p=0.003) and language (10.1% vs 3.2%, p<0.0001). Immigrant women were less likely than Canadian-born women to report activity limitations (p=0.01) and medication use for sleep problems (14.1% vs 20.6%, p=0.05) and depression (11.5% vs 17.6%, p=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our exploratory study revealed no differences between immigrant and Canadian-born women in the physical and psychological consequences of IPV. Abused immigrant women's lower levels of trust for certain individuals and experiences of discrimination may have important implications for seeking help for IPV and underscores the need for IPV-related intervention and prevention services that are culturally sensitive and appropriate.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".