BATTERER RISK ASSESSMENT: THE MISSING LINK IN BREAKING THE CYCLE OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Batterers exposed to childhood violence, with a history of violent behaviour, are impulsive, have poor anger management skills, will use intimate violence in their relationships and ignore/violate protection orders. In this study, 53 male and 47 female respondents were selected using purposive sampling. The outcome highlighted the need for treatment providers to assess ‘risk factors’ of batterers prior to any intervention. The results showed that batterers presenting with specific risk factors, posed significant risks to their intimate partners. Risk assessment and risk markers could therefore contribute to highlighting and addressing violent masculinity aspects, responsive to intervention. This approach could protect partners and encourage batterers to take responsibility for changing their abusive responses in intimate relationships. The methodological framework of this research project was informed by the Intervention Research: Design and Development. The author used a Canadian Risk Assessment Tool, the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment guide (SARA), a 20 item data collecting instrument used to ‘assess risk’ and ‘predict dangerousness’ of continued violence in men with a history of domestic/intimate violence.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".