MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2472984959 · doi:10.1080/09540261.2016.1205001

Children’s exposure to intimate partner violence: an overview

2016· review· en· W2472984959 on OpenAlexafffund
Jill R. McTavish, Jen MacGregor, C. Nadine Wathen, Harriet L. MacMillan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Psychiatry · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWorld Health Organization
KeywordsNeglectDomestic violenceHarmPsychological interventionMental healthPsychologyWitnessMedicinePsychiatryPsychological abuseClinical psychologyOccupational safety and healthSuicide preventionPoison controlMedical emergencySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children's exposure to intimate partner violence (IPV) is associated with significant emotional impairment and other harmful effects. It is increasingly recognized as a type of child maltreatment, with outcomes similar to other types of abuse and neglect. Children can experience harm from exposure to IPV, even when not directly involved in, or a witness to, the violence between caregivers. This review, based on a synthesis of best available evidence, addresses the epidemiology of children's exposure to IPV, including prevalence, risk and protective factors, and associated impairment, as well as strategies for identification, and interventions for prevention of exposure and impairment. Strategies for ensuring children's safety are also discussed. The article concludes with guidance specific to mental health clinicians.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.388 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations234
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of PsychiatrySame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207