Social Support Needs Identified by Mothers Affected by Intimate Partner Violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to offer optimal supports and services for mothers affected by intimate partner violence (IPV), an understanding of these mothers' perceptions of support needs, resources, barriers to support, and preferences for support intervention is warranted. Moreover, the growing recognition of the effects of IPV on maternal-infant relationships and of the importance of these early relationships to long-term child health outcomes suggests interventions are needed to support optimal maternal-infant relationships in these families. Thus, 64 mothers exposed to IPV when their infants were below 12 months of age participated in a retrospective qualitative study to identify mothers' support needs, resources, barriers to support, and preferences for specific support interventions to promote optimal mother-infant relationships. Participants identified both personal needs (including needs for leaving or staying with the violent partner), along with intertwined needs to care for, and help, their infants cope with the experience of violence. Mothers reported that integrated services that include information and practical support from professionals with emotional and affirmation support from peers would promote positive, nurturing mother-infant relationships and healthy child development.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".