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

Campaigns Targeting Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence

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

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.043
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