MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145703033 · doi:10.1007/s10896-015-9688-8

Patterns and Predictors of Service Use Among Women Who Have Separated from an Abusive Partner

2015· article· en· W2145703033 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marilyn Ford‐Gilboe, Colleen Varcoe, Marianne S. Noh, Judith Wuest, Joanne Hammerton, Eman Alhalal, Camille Burnett

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Violence · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickUniversity of British ColumbiaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDomestic violenceLegal psychologyMental healthLogistic regressionPopulationMedicineService providerSocial workService (business)Poison controlSuicide preventionPsychologyPsychiatryEnvironmental healthGerontologySocial psychologyBusinessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using baseline data from a survey of 309 Canadian women recently separated from an abusive partner, we investigated patterns of access to health, social, legal, and violence-specific services and whether abuse history and social and health variables predict service use. We compared rates of service use to population rates, and used logistic regression to identify determinants of use. Service use rates were substantially higher than population estimates in every category, particularly in general and mental health sectors. Although women were confident in their ability to access services, they reported substantial unmet need, difficulty accessing services, and multiple barriers. The strongest unique predictors of use varied across service type. Health variables (high disability chronic pain, symptoms of depression and PTSD), low income, and mothering were the most consistent predictors. Service providers and policy makers must account for social location, abuse history, and health status of Intimate Violence (IPV) survivors. Strategies to enhance access to primary health care services, and to create a system of more integrated, accessible services, are required.

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 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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations73
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family ViolenceSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207