Domestic violence and high conflict are not the same: a gendered analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In child custody decision-making experiences of domestic violence and high conflict are not the same. Legislative reform has not yet been guided by the parent voice to inform differentiated responses that keep women and children safe. Available literature in child custody decision-making focuses on outcome research regarding children’s adjustment and well-being. Debates about types of post-separation arrangements have yet to find agreement in three under-researched areas: (a) high conflict, (b) domestic violence; and (c) children under four. Yet, Canadian legislation supports shared parenting arrangements that privilege the dominant, powerful parent in situations of domestic violence. Based on a Canadian study that explores the parent perspectives and experiences of child custody decision-making, this paper privileges a sub-group of participants; five women, all survivors of domestic violence; defined here as both physical violence and coercive control. Data collection includes one-on-one tape-recorded interviews. Thematic analysis reveals that shared parenting is neither the goal, nor does it meet the needs of these women. The findings illuminate the importance of differentiating parent experience as distinct groups, and reinforces the notion of the state’s role in the reproduction of gendered power. Legislative reform and collaborative community practices are critical to facilitate healthy differentiated responses.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".