Uncovering neighbourhood influences on intimate partner violence using concept mapping
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While neighbourhood influences on the risk of intimate partner violence have been reported, this body of research has suffered from a lack of strong theoretical and conceptual guidance, and few studies have examined the potential pathways from neighbourhoods to intimate partner violence. This paper used concept mapping methods with 37 women who were residents of Baltimore City to obtain cluster maps representing the important neighbourhood domains that affect the prevalence, perpetration, severity, and cessation of intimate partner violence. Domains important for intimate partner severity and perpetration differed from those important for cessation of intimate partner violence. Finally, diagrams of the domains, drawn by the concept mapping participants, illustrated the pathways by which neighbourhood characteristics potentially influence intimate partner violence severity, perpetration, and cessation. These results can be used to generate testable hypotheses regarding neighbourhood influences on intimate partner violence in future quantitative research and to inform the design of public health intimate partner violence programmes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it