MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143817089 · doi:10.1177/0192513x07306980

Love as a Battlefield

2007· article· en· W2143817089 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

VenueJournal of Family Issues · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistancingPsychologyThematic analysisSocial psychologyContext (archaeology)BattlefieldDomestic violenceAttachment theoryAbusive relationshipDevelopmental psychologyPoison controlQualitative researchHuman factors and ergonomicsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)SociologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors explored the attachment dynamics of heterosexual couples identified for male partner violence. Based on semistructured interviews, participants were assessed for attachment orientations. Based on a thematic analysis of the interviews, two strategies for regulating distance within these relationships were identified: pursuit and distancing. Partners' abusive acts often appeared to serve one of these attachment strategies. As a pursuit strategy, violence forced one partner to focus on the other, and as a distancing strategy, violence served to push a partner back when the perpetrator had been approached too closely and perceived no other means of escape or self-protection. To understand the context in which individuals acted abusively, the authors considered the interaction between the attachment orientations of both partners as they sought to regulate their emotional and physical proximity. Findings highlight the relational basis of intimate violence.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score0.636

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.401
Teacher spread0.359 · 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