MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Common Misconceptions in Addressing Domestic Violence in Child Custody Disputes

2003· article· en· W2145959778 on OpenAlexaff
Peter G. Jaffe, Claire V. Crooks, Samantha E. Poisson

Bibliographic record

VenueJuvenile and Family Court Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDomestic violenceEconomic JusticeCriminologyPsychologyResource (disambiguation)Child custodyPolitical scienceHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlMedicineLawEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Domestic violence has been recognized as an important factor to consider in determining the best interests of children in custody and visitation disputes. However, there remain many misconceptions about the extent and impact of domestic violence in child custody proceedings. Several misconceptions are identified and juxtaposed with the reality of emerging knowledge in this field, and implications are outlined. These issues are illustrated by the perspectives of 62 women victims and 95 children exposed to domestic violence who had to navigate the justice system after separation from an abuser. Recommendations are offered for enhancing professional education, resource development, and collaboration among courts and community service providers.

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 score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.307 · 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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJuvenile and Family Court JournalSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207