MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160930418 · doi:10.1177/1524838011416376

Campaigns Targeting Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence

2011· article· en· W2160930418 on OpenAlexaffabout
Magdalena Cismaru, Anne M. Lavack

Bibliographic record

VenueTrauma Violence & Abuse · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsKwantlen Polytechnic UniversityUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDomestic violencePoison controlSuicide preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsOccupational safety and healthInjury preventionMedical emergencyCriminologyPsychologyMedicinePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a global public health concern with significant physical, emotional, and economic costs. Persuading IPV perpetrators to change their behavior could play an important role in ending violence. This article reviews and analyzes 16 campaigns targeting IPV perpetrators, created in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. Two well-known models, the Transtheoretical (Stages of Change) model and Protection Motivation theory (PMT), are combined to create the analytical framework. For each stage of change, the most salient PMT variables are outlined, the people found in that stage are described, and the most effective strategies for persuasion are posited. Together, these two models would suggest that future campaigns targeting IPV perpetrators should place a stronger emphasis on the benefits of changing and place a greater focus on increasing perpetrators' confidence that they can abstain from violence.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations37
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrauma Violence & AbuseSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207