Le contrôle exercé sur la conjointe : comparaison de quatre groupes d’hommes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results of an exploratory study on the control exerted by men over their spouse. Four groups of 15 men each, were compared: 1) men with no criminal record and who had volontarily taken part in a community program for violent men; 2) men accused of spouse abuse, exclusively; 3) men accused of spouse abuse and other crimes; 4) men selected at random from the community. The type of sample was non probabilistic. Three questionnaires were administered: 1) a demographic questionnaire 2) the "Abusive Behavior Inventory" (Shepard and Campbell, 1992) and 3) the "Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory" (Tolman, 1989). The results demonstrated that the control group (group 4) displayed "stability" in comparaison with the groups of accused men (groups 2 and 3) where important difficulties and "marginality" were observed. "Non accused" spouse abusers (group 1) obtained middle ranged scores. Scores from the four sub-scales in the two attitudinal inventories corrrelated significantly and were in the predicted direction. As the level of psychological or physical abuse increased, so did the desire to dominate and isolate women. Given the small sample size and the quasi-experimental nature of the design, the results are not considered as definitive; however, they provide directions for future research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".