Women’s attitude and reasons toward justifying domestic violence in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Domestic violence (DV) is a global public problem that touches all levels of society and socio-economic status. Identifying women's attitudes towards domestic violence is an important first step in the prevention and control of its consequence. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed: (i) to synthesize women's reasons for justifying domestic violence and (ii) to determine the pooled prevalence of women's attitude towards domestic violence in Ethiopia. METHODS: Pub-Med and google scholar data bases searched for quantitative cross-sectional studies. The study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment tool. Heterogeneity test and evidence of publication bias were assessed. Pooled prevalence of women's attitude was calculated with 95%CI using random effects model. RESULTS: A total of 15 articles were included in the study. The pooled prevalence of women's attitude towards justifying domestic violence was found to be 57% (95% CI; 47.0%-67.2%). Reasons for justifying were: burning food, argues with husband, goes out without telling, neglects children, refuses sex, unfaithful, disobeys and suspects infidelity. CONCLUSION: More than half of women accept domestic violence. Authors' suggest strengthening of women's awareness toward norms that justify wife beating.
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 | 0.016 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".