MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2934782793 · doi:10.9788/tp2019.1-10

Gender and Same-Sex Intimate Partner Violence: A Systematic Literature Review

2019· article· pt· W2934782793 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Isa Correia De Barros, Ana Isabel Sani, Luı́s M. N. B. F. Santos

Bibliographic record

VenueTemas em Psicologia · 2019
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Regional Development FundFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaUniversidade do MinhoInternational Council for Canadian Studies
KeywordsIntimate partnerDomestic violencePsychologyCriminologySocial psychologyHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The infl uence of gender on intimate partner violence (IPV) has been predominantly studied in opposite sex relationships. This article presents the results of a systematic literature review in which the aim was to understand how gender may aff ect not only the violence in same-sex IPV but also, and mostly, each element of the couple and third-party responses. The search was conducted in four electronic databases: B-on, PubMed, Sage and PsycINFO. From the analysis of seven articles selected, four major domains were identifi ed in which gender aff ects these relationships: normalizing violence; diffi culty in recognizing violence; diffi culty in seeking help; and social isolation. It was concluded that gender, or gender role expectations, cannot be ignored while studying this phenomenon. More than infl uencing violence per se, gender shapes the way each element of the couple perceives their experiences and third-party perceptions (e.g., family, friends, justice system, and victims support services professionals), preventing an adequate social response to this form of violence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.670
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTemas em PsicologiaSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207