A Scoping Review on Intimate Partner Violence in Canada’s Immigrant Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada relies on newcomers for population growth, labor supply, and cultural diversity. Newcomers, in turn, see Canada as a haven of economic opportunities. However, the extent to which these mutual benefits can be realized depends on how well newcomers fare in Canada. Intimate partner violence (IPV) significantly undermines immigrants' capacity to rebuild their lives in host societies. As in other Western democracies, recent immigrants and refugees to Canada are highly vulnerable to IPV; they arrive with limited support systems, wrestle with changing family dynamics, and may have to adapt to new gender roles. IPV often occurs in the private domain of the family and poses serious risks to women, children, families, and the broader society. Our scoping review of 30 articles on IPV within Canadian immigrant groups identifies crucial differences in perceptions and experiences of, responses to, and coping mechanisms among female survivors, and a tendency to place the blame for IPV on the cultural values and practices that immigrants bring to Canada. The majority of existing services and policies, our review shows, are not well suited to immigrant women's needs and may undermine women's capacity to find satisfying solutions. Our review is limited by a dearth of literature; it is based mainly on the experiences of South East Asian immigrant women in the Greater Toronto Area. Our findings suggest that future research should address women's and men's experiences of IPV, include nonheterosexual couples, extend to the broader immigrant population, and incorporate the voices of stakeholders other than survivors.
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 | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.034 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".