MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154479336 · doi:10.1177/1077801209360854

Profiling Abusive Men Based on Women’s Self-Reports: Findings From a Sample of Urban Low-Income Minority Women

2010· article· en· W2154479336 on OpenAlexaff
Subadra Panchanadeswaran, Laura Ting, Jessica G. Burke, Patricia O’Campo, Karen A. McDonnell, Andrea C. Gielen

Bibliographic record

VenueViolence Against Women · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersAdelphi UniversityNational Institute of Mental HealthJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsAggressionClinical psychologyDomestic violenceProfiling (computer programming)PsychologyPoison controlCluster (spacecraft)Suicide preventionInjury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsMedicinePsychiatryMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding abusive behaviors among nonclinical samples of men is important to help women in the community understand the risks they may face. The purpose of the current study is to identify abusive profiles and subgroups of non-treatment-seeking men using women's self reports. Of the sample of 611 women, 43% reported current abuse; chronicity of psychological aggression was the highest. Cluster analysis results revealed three different types of abusers. Findings provided support for recognizing batterer heterogeneity, especially based on women's reports. Recommendations for future research and the limitations of using batterer typologies are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations9
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueViolence Against WomenSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207