MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949737380 · doi:10.1177/1077801219848485

A Sample of Predominately African American Domestic Violence Victims’ Responses to Objective Risk Assessments

2019· article· en· W2949737380 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Krystal J. Dinwiddie, Sandra Zawadzki, Kelly I. Ristau, Amanda F. Luneburg, Taylor A. Earley, Mairey Ruiz, Dijonée Talley, Jim Iaccino, Kendell L. Coker

Bibliographic record

VenueViolence Against Women · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDomestic violenceRisk assessmentPoison controlEnvironmental healthSuicide preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsInjury preventionMedicineOccupational safety and healthSample (material)DemographyPsychologyComputer securitySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One area of significant concern for researchers of domestic violence is identifying the utility of objective risk assessment tools on diverse samples. This study included a sample of predominately African American women ( n = 57) living in a domestic violence shelter. The study compared the Danger Assessment (DA) and the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) to evaluate their responses of their risk for re-abuse. Results revealed a moderate to strong correlation between the DA and ODARA ( r = .73). Offender’s age, habitation, and pregnancy status were not related to the victim’s perceptions of risk for future abuse. Implications of these findings are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.322 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueViolence Against WomenSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207