From “Buzzword” to Best Practice: Applying Intersectionality to Children Exposed to Intimate Partner Violence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Empirical studies on the impact of intimate partner violence (IPV) on children have burgeoned over the last three decades. Notably absent from existing approaches to studying children exposed to IPV, however, is attention to how various positionalities intersect to impact the experiences of children and their families. In fact, while the importance of an intersectional framework for understanding IPV has been discussed for over two decades, little or no attention has been given to issues of children's exposure to IPV. In this article, we examine the current state of the literature on children exposed to IPV through an exploratory meta-analysis, finding limited application of intersectionality and a focus on discrete categories of difference. We then demonstrate why and how an intersectional framework should be applied to children exposed to IPV, with specific strategies for research and policy. We suggest a child-centered approach that recognizes diversity among children exposed to IPV, extending the challenge to traditional "one-size-fits-all" models to include an intersectionality-informed stance.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.017 |
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 it