Differentiating Characteristics of Intimate Partner Violence: Do Relationship Status, State, and Duration Matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing body of literature has been devoted to analyzing the relationship status and state between victim and perpetrator to understand the dynamics of intimate partner violence (IPV). Prior research revealed that IPV was more frequent and severe in cohabiting and estranged relationships relative to marital/dating and intact relationships, respectively. Violence in cohabiting unions, however, has declined in recent years potentially due to the increasing popularity of such unions and their growing similarity to legal marriages. The use of relationship duration as a focal variable in analyzing the characteristics of IPV incidents, however, has received inadequate attention within the field. This study addresses this gap and builds upon existing research by exploring whether characteristics of IPV differ depending on the status, state, and duration of relationship by examining IPV cases documented in Crown Attorney files in one Ontario jurisdiction between 2003 and 2009. Through bivariate and multivariate analyses, current findings reveal that IPV involving marital, compared with dating, unions is more severe because of weapon use. Contradictory to previous research, IPV occurring among estranged intimate partners, compared with those in intact unions, is less likely to involve physical injury or weapon use. Finally, situational, in comparison with demographic, characteristics are affected less by the relationship duration between the perpetrator and victim. Several explanations for these findings are discussed along with study limitations and practical implications in terms of preventive measures, and it concludes with areas for future research.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".