MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2240746250 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.34.1.93

The Impact on Subsequent Violence of Returning to an Abusive Partner

2003· article· en· W2240746250 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Deborah J. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDomestic violenceSocial psychologyPsychologyCriminologyPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsMedical emergencyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the consequences, measured by subsequent violence, of returning to a previously abusive relationship. Two stage least squares estimation is used to control for the effect of prior violence on the probability of leaving, thus isolating the independent effect of leaving on later violence. The theoretically expected result is ambiguous: On the one hand, if aggressors view the attempt to leave as disobedience, then violence should increase upon return. If, instead, aggressors believe the temporary leave indicates that the victim will leave permanently (because she is unwilling to tolerate further abuse), then violence should decrease. Using data from the 1985 Physical Violence in American Families survey, the results show that victims who temporarily leave their abusers suffer increased violence relative to those who never leave.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations68
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicGender, Labor, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207