Hope, Agency, and the Lived Experience of Violence: A Qualitative Systematic Review of Children’s Perspectives on Domestic Violence and Abuse
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a large body of research on the impact of domestic violence and abuse (DVA) on children, mostly reporting survey data and focusing largely on psychological outcomes. Qualitative research on the views of children has the potential to enable a child-centered understanding of their experience of DVA, so their needs can be better met by professionals. This systematic review reports general findings from the ViOlence: Impact on Children Evidence Synthesis (VOICES) project that synthesized published qualitative research on the experiences of DVA from the perspective of children and young people. A thematic synthesis of 33 reports identified six themes: lived experience of DVA, children’s agency and coping, turning points and transitions, managing relationships postseparation, impact of DVA on children, and children’s expressions of hope for the future. We conclude that professionals working with children affected by DVA should be mindful of the diversity in children’s experiences and listen carefully to children’s own accounts.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 it