A systematic review on LGBTIQ Intimate Partner Violence from a Western perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) as experienced by minority populations is poorly understood. Within the Western world, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, and Queer or Questioning LGBTIQ population is one such group which suffers from misrepresentations and misunderstandings. In Western nations, IPV is primarily constructed as perpetrated by men and experienced by women. However, for the LGBTIQ population, this dichotomous view of IPV is inaccurate and invalidating. A systematic review was conducted to investigate the level of LGBTIQ inclusivity within IPV discourses in the Western world as discussed in peer reviewed literature. In particular, the review sought to understand how media, advocacy, policy, and legislation shape LGBTIQ IPV experiences and resulting discourses. The literature search was conducted between June 2018 and January 2019. The search included five electronic databases in psychology, health, and social sciences. Of the 206 articles identified by the search, 21 were reviewed. The review analyzed literature using a thematic approach. Eight key themes emerged, indicating media, legislation, policy, and advocacy are not entirely inclusive concerning LGBTIQ IPV. The review found that pervasive attitudes like heterosexism, cissexism, homophobia, transphobia, and biphobia reinforce institutional barriers and limited LGBTIQ IPV reporting. In addition, the review found low service and provider competency levels, and more broadly, the research was limited. It is likely that heteronormative frameworks and discourses mean many aspects of LGBTIQ IPV are still under-researched. Without a more robust inclusion of diversity in discourses on IPV, services and supports for LGBTIQ people will continue to be limited and based on heteronormative frameworks of victimhood.
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 | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".