Pathways to Police Contact for Spousal Violence Survivors: The Role of Individual and Neighborhood Factors in Survivors’ Reporting Behaviors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rational choice theory proposes that spousal violence survivors engage in a cost–benefit analysis when determining whether to contact the police in the aftermath of violence. Feminist intersectional frameworks contend that the perceived costs and benefits of police intervention differ among survivors based on their intersecting social identities. Normative theory further posits that it is not solely individual factors but also social norms derived from one’s neighborhood context that may be related to reporting practices. Consistent with these perspectives, this study assessed the association between spousal violence survivors’ sociodemographic, violence, and neighborhood characteristics and (a) police contact, (b) pathways to police contact, (c) motivations for contacting the police, and (d) motivations for not contacting the police. Data were drawn from the 2009 Canadian General Social Survey–Victimization main file, and included male and female survivors ( N = 890). Survivors most commonly contacted the police to stop the violence (89.4%) and most commonly did not contact the police because they did not believe it was important enough (35.3%). Results of multivariate regression analysis indicate that survivors who were visible minority, those who feared for their lives, and those who were injured were significantly more likely to self-report violence to police. Survivors were more likely to say the violence was not important enough to report if there was a police station in their neighborhood, and were less likely to say that violence was not important enough to report if they had experienced multiple incidents of violence. Implications for policing and criminal justice system engagement with spousal violence survivors are provided.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".