Child Welfare Responses Linked to Subtypes of Exposure to Intimate Partner Violence: Evidence From the Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children exposed to intimate partner violence (CE-IPV) are at increased risk for later health and social difficulties. To date, studies have primarily focused on CE-IPV as a unitary construct; this may lead to the mistaken assumption that all subtypes of CE-IPV (i.e., exposure to direct or indirect physical abuse, or exposure to emotional abuse) are equally harmful requiring similar responses from child welfare services. The purpose of this study was to examine child welfare responses by CE-IPV subtype in a large Canadian child welfare sample. Using data from the Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect–2008 ( N = 2,184), we examined child welfare responses to CE-IPV subtypes or their co-occurrence. Information was obtained from child welfare workers’ reports. Cases with co-occurring subtypes of CE-IPV were more likely to be substantiated and involved multiple incidents compared with that with single CE-IPV subtypes. Cases with direct physical CE-IPV and co-occurring CE-IPV were also more likely to remain open and have an application considered or made to child welfare court. Exposure to emotional IPV was the least likely to warrant interventions by welfare services, including referrals to specialized services. These results suggest that within CE-IPV subtypes, there is evidence of different responses (recommendations and services) once a case has been opened by a worker. Future research is needed to examine the effectiveness of the responses and outcomes for children following child welfare interventions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".