Perceptions of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Among Young Canadian Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines young women’s perceptions of intimate partner violence (IPV) and \ncontextual factors that help shape these perceptions. Qualitative research using in-depth focus groups \nwere conducted with diverse young women, aged 18 to 24 years, from diverse backgrounds, living in \nToronto, Canada. Open-ended and semi-structured interview questions were designed to elicit \ninformation regarding how young women think about, describe , and define IPV. Thematic analysis \nwas used to identify the core constructs that shape young women’s understandings. Findings \nsuggested that young women clearly defined IPV and considered psychological, physical and sexual \nacts as abusive. However, contextual factors related to the nature of abuse, such as the type and \nfrequency of abuse and intent of the aggressor to cause harm, as well as factors related to the social \ncontext such as the acceptance of mutual aggression, power and control, influenced their ability to \nrecognize IPV in their own relationships. Understanding the contextual factors shaping young \nwomen’s perceptions of IPV can inform the development of effective IPV prevention education \nprograms for young women.
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".