Child welfare investigations involving exposure to intimate partner violence: Case and worker characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This paper explores child welfare investigations involving three forms of children’s exposure \nto intimate partner violence (IPV): direct witness to physical violence, indirect exposure to physical \nviolence, and exposure to emotional violence, and the characteristics associated with these subtypes. \nThese data allow the exposure to IPV typology to be more precisely examined as the subtypes define \nthe specific event(s) investigated. Methods: Using a large representative dataset of an estimated 22,373 \ninvestigations, clinical and case characteristics are examined. Bivariate analyses are conducted in order to \nassess differences for the three forms of IPV. Results: Investigations involving children’s direct witnessing \nof physical violence was most frequently substantiated and kept open for ongoing child welfare services \ncompared to other forms of exposure. Caregiver risk factors differed significantly between the three \nsubtypes of exposure to IPV. Some worker characteristics were also significantly different (e.g., social \nwork degree, and domestic violence training) depending on the type of exposure IPV being investigated. \nConclusions and Implications: These results have important policy and practice implications in that they \nshow that a differential systems response is needed for exposure to IPV, depending on the type of exposure \nand the child, family, and household risk factors present. The results also suggest that some workers may \nrequire additional domestic violence training.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".