A Profile of Exposure to Intimate Partner Violence Investigations in the Canadian Child Welfare System: An Examination Using the 2008 Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (CIS-2008)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To provide a profile of the incidence and characteristics of substantiated exposure to intimate partner violence (IPV) investigations in Canada in 2008. Methods: Bivariate analyses were conducted examining four types of substantiated investigations in order to better understand the response of the child welfare system to IPV investigations: (i) investigations in which exposure to IPV was the single substantiated form of maltreatment; (ii) investigations in which another type of maltreatment (physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, or emotional maltreatment) was the single substantiated form of maltreatment; (iii) investigations in which exposure to IPV co-occurred with at least one other form of maltreatment; (iv) investigations in which there were co-occurring forms of maltreatment that did not include IPV. Results: 41% of substantiated investigations involved exposure to IPV, with 31% of investigations involving single form IPV and 10% of investigations involving IPV that co-occurred with another form of maltreatment. A total of 51% of investigations were substantiated for a single form of other maltreatment (physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect or emotional maltreatment) and 8% of investigations were substantiated for cooccurring forms of these four types of maltreatment. The investigations were compared on family, child, case, and service characteristics. Conclusions and Implications: Exposure to IPV is a complex issue and demands an equally complex response that includes cross sector collaboration. Child welfare agencies receiving referrals regarding intimate partner violence should aim to identify opportunities to prevent recurrence and support the victims identified in the investigation.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it