LIFE MATTERS: ACKNOWLEDGING VICTIM RESISTANCE AND THE POWER OF SOCIAL RESPONSES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Welcome to this special edition of the International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies. We are delighted to bring you this edition, which focuses on exploring interpersonal violence in its broader context. The situational and sociopolitical context of interpersonal violence includes an understanding of the importance of positive social responses for the victim. The term “social responses” refers to the things family, friends, and professionals do during and after disclosure: these responses can strengthen or undermine the well-being of the person who has experienced violence.These articles are based on certain assumptions about interpersonal violence. One important assumption is that victims — people who are targeted by violence — are not to blame. Victims of violence resist mistreatment, try to preserve their dignity, and enact responses that maximize their safety and the safety of others, even when there is very little room to maneuver. These articles were adapted from presentations at the Responses to Interpersonal Violence conference held at the University of Montreal in May 2016. This conference was accompanied by a meeting of the International Responses to Interpersonal Violence Network, headed by Margareta Hydén from the University of Linköping in Sweden.
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 | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".