MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2563122389 · doi:10.1080/10926771.2016.1241332

“When I’d Dealt with My Issues, I Was Ready to Give Back”: Peer Leader’s Perspectives of Support Groups for Women Abused by Intimate Partners

2016· article· en· W2563122389 on OpenAlex
Leslie M. Tutty, Cindy Ogden, Karen Wyllie, Andrea Silverstone

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aggression Maltreatment & Trauma · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeer supportGroup processPsychologyIntervention (counseling)Qualitative researchSupport groupDomestic violenceSocial psychologyValue (mathematics)Public relationsMedicineSociologySuicide preventionPolitical sciencePoison controlPsychiatryComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The serious nature of the abuse of women by intimate partners has garnered worldwide concern. Victims are often assisted through support groups; however, little is known about how the groups work or how leaders perceive the group process and the women’s response to the intervention. This qualitative process evaluation presents the perspectives of 14 trained peers who led weekly Growth Circle groups to provide support to abused women. The article describes the leader’s backgrounds, perceptions of the group process, and coleadership, in addition to reflections on the value and challenges in offering the program. Implications for community agencies and group leaders are offered.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.322 · 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