Availability and accessibility of community based services for family violence victims: a comparative case study of Trochu, Alberta and Calgary, Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a comparison case study method, the goal of this undergraduate honours project was to compile a resource inventory of the community based services for victims of family violence specific to a Southern Alberta rural town to those in an urban area. This topic is important to examine because rates of family violence are higher among rural populations than in urban areas (Statistics Canada, 2016, p. 43; Northcott, 2011, p. 10). Due to the unique nature of family violence criminality and victimization, victims require additional supports beyond those provided by the criminal justice system. Community based agencies offer various resources that may be used in helping individuals cope with, address, and/or escape situations involving family violence. The resource inventory includes and compares the community based services available to victims of family violence in the rural community of Trochu, Alberta, to those available in the urban center of Calgary, Alberta. In short, while there was no difference in the community based services available to family violence victims, differences were in the accessibility of community services were apparent in terms of: geography and transportation options; diversity of services; and the technology used by the agencies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".