Beliefs about intimate partner violence: A survey of the Swedish general public
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public interventions are considered to be an important means of preventing intimate partner violence (IPV). What people believe about the nature of IPV is likely to determine their propensity to intervene, but little is known at present about IPV beliefs among the general public. In a survey of 650 Swedish citizens, beliefs about the prevalence and causes of IPV, and viable means of intervention were assessed. Respondents estimated, on average, that IPV occurs in almost one quarter of all intimate relationships in Sweden, and that IPV is particularly prevalent in low-income groups, among non-European immigrants, in suburban areas, and in couples under the age of 50 years. Physical violence was believed to be the most frequent form of abuse in male offender-female victim cases, whereas psychological violence was considered most frequent in other combinations of offender and victim gender. Female respondents estimated a higher prevalence of IPV, attributed less blame to IPV victims, and suggested more means of intervention, than did male respondents. The findings are discussed in relation to empirical prevalence estimates, and implications are proposed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".