Understanding the Elevated Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence in Interracial Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research from the United States and Canada suggest that interracial relationships tend to have an elevated prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV). Among seven extant studies, only one empirically examined speculations in the literature for this relationship. Based on analyses of data from Statistics Canada’s 2009 General Social Survey (GSS), Brownridge was not able to fully account for the elevated odds of IPV in interracial relationships. The current study used data on 16,706 Canadians (731 in interracial relationships and 15,975 in noninterracial relationships) from the 2014 iteration of Statistics Canada’s GSS to determine whether the risk of IPV in interracial relationships had changed since 2009 and to explore risk factors that may account for the elevated odds of IPV in interracial relationships. Results showed that individuals in interracial relationships faced elevated odds of IPV victimization relative to monoracial relationships in the 5-year reporting period prior to the study (odds ratio [OR] = 2.37; 95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.40, 4.02]; p < .001). This was similar to what Brownridge found in the 2009 GSS data, indicating that the elevated risk of IPV in interracial relationships had remained stable in Canada over a 10-year reporting period. Risk factors from three levels of an ecological model were explored, and logistic multiple regression analyses showed that characteristics of the partner (young age, drug use, and jealous behavior) fully accounted for the significantly elevated odds of IPV victimization in interracial unions. Although the leading speculation for this relationship implicates stressors that are unique to these relationships, the current study suggested that this phenomenon is mostly due to characteristics of individuals with whom those in interracial relationships are more likely to be coupled.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".