MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2968355812 · doi:10.1080/17441692.2019.1649447

Currently married women’s present experiences of male intimate partner physical violence in Bangladesh: An intercategorical intersectional approach

2019· article· en· W2968355812 on OpenAlexafffund
Laila Rahman, Janice Du Mont, Patricia O’Campo, Gillian Einstein

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Public Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalWomen's College HospitalPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsIntersectionalityDisadvantagedPovertyOddsGender studiesOppressionDomestic violenceSociologyDemographySocioeconomicsPoison controlLogistic regressionSuicide preventionPoliticsPolitical scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Bangladesh, one in five currently married women (CMW) presently experience male intimate partner physical violence (MIPPV). While previous studies analysed women’s individual-level multiple locations–younger age, lower education, income, and poverty in an additive manner, we took an intersectional approach to look at the effects of their multiple intersectional locations on MIPPV. Using McCall’s intercategorical intersectional approach, we examine how women’s intersectional locations are associated with their odds of experiencing MIPPV. Our sample from a 2015 nationally representative survey comprised 14,557 CMW living with their spouses. Thirty-four percent of CMW are young, 49% below primary educated, 19% income earning, 23% poor, and 25% experience MIPPV. We found that CMW in their dual disadvantaged younger age–lower education and single disadvantaged higher education–poor locations have 13.57% (95% CI, 9.25, 17.89) and 12.02% (95% CI, 6.87, 17.17) (respectively) higher probabilities of experiencing MIPPV than their counterparts in the corresponding dual privileged older age–higher education and higher education–nonpoor locations. Consistent with intersectionality theory, instead of prioritising a few groups over others (i.e. Oppression Olympics), we recommend building intersectional solidarity with women, men and communities to disrupt the underlying socio-economic-educational-legal-political structures and processes that have sustained these marginalised locations.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Public HealthSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207