Head and neck injuries in adult victims of intimate-partner violence.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: to quantify head and neck injuries in known adult victims of intimate-partner violence (IPV). DESIGN: retrospective chart review. SETTING: sexual assault and domestic violence program in a southeastern Ontario hospital. METHODS: all subjects over the age of 16 years consenting for evaluation by a domestic violence nurse from August 2004 until February 2009 were eligible for inclusion. Subjects for which no physical injury was documented were excluded. Data were extracted from body maps and surveys completed by a specially trained domestic violence nurse. Demographic data, mechanisms of injury, relationship to the assailant, and a history of IPV from the same assailant were collected from the survey. The type and anatomic location of the injury were collected from body maps. Injuries were categorized into six larger categories for analysis according to general anatomic area and multiplicity of areas involved. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: anatomic location of the injury. RESULTS: one hundred eight visits were eligible for inclusion in the study. Data on 657 injuries were recorded. The frequency of any head and neck injury was significantly greater than no head and neck injury (p < .001). In subjects experiencing multiple areas of injury, head and neck injuries were significantly more common than not (p < .001). In subjects experiencing only one area of injury, head and neck injuries were more common than lower extremity injuries alone (p = .003) and trunk injuries alone (p = .033) but not significantly more common than upper extremity injuries (p = .102). CONCLUSIONS: head and neck injuries are more common than not in known adult victims of IPV.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".