Women’s Advocates and Shelter Residents: Describing Experiences of Working and Living in Domestic Violence Shelters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Domestic violence shelters are a crucial service for women who have experienced violence and abuse from intimate partners. Despite research that demonstrates the effectiveness of shelter stays, little is known about the practices that occur and the interventions offered. Using data from qualitative interviews with six women's advocates and six shelter residents, the article explores and documents the advocates' practices and the impact of the shelter stay on women residents. The women's advocates report that they provide women residents time to become comfortable, empower them to set their own goals and make their own decisions, and then help them to connect to other community resources. They also stressed that shelters are homes and they want to create environments within their shelters that are nonchaotic and violence free, so that the interactions encountered in these settings are different from women residents' experiences with their abusive partners. The women residents reported receiving interventions that were similar to the descriptions that the advocates provided about their practice. For these women, being able to feel comfortable, safe, cared for, respected, and not judged was central to feeling helped during their shelter stay. Although the interview accounts revealed the importance of the relationship between advocates and residents, the findings also demonstrate that the environment within these shelters is equally significant to determining the quality of residents' experiences.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".