Making Sociological Sense Out of Trends in Intimate Partnera Violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite evidence of a cultural shift in orientations toward violence, the problem of violence against women persists across a range of different societies. The preoccupation with the psychology of violence and the focus on cultural orientations obscure the more salient features of social life that promote violence: the structure of interpersonal relationships. The exploration of sociodemographic correlates and the search for “risk factors” of intimate partner violence have overshadowed the inclusion of a distinct set of social structural characteristics that are conducive to domestic violence. The current article draws on comparative research and Donald Black’s theoretical approach to argue that key factors include (a) the degree of social isolation, (b) interdependence of support networks, (c) inequality, (d) relational distance, (e) centralization of authority, and (f) exposure to violent networks. The weak explanatory power of previous research can be improved by developing measures to evaluate an integrated structural model of violence against women.
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 | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".