MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2976230824 · doi:10.1080/1068316x.2019.1670178

Barriers to safety for victims of domestic homicide

2019· article· en· W2976230824 on OpenAlexaffabout
Natalia Musielak, Peter G. Jaffe, Natalia Lapshina

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology Crime and Law · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomicideStalkingDomestic violenceContext (archaeology)Poison controlOccupational safety and healthSuicide preventionCriminologyMental healthInjury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsPsychologyEnvironmental healthMedicineMedical emergencyPsychiatryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research on domestic homicide has focused on risk factors presented by perpetrators such as prior violence, threats to kill, stalking, access to weapons, mental health concerns, controlling behaviour and separation. However, there has been less focus on the barriers that victims face regarding finding support, increasing personal safety and decreasing violence and risk of homicide. The present study explored 20 potential barriers that female domestic homicide victims faced using 183 cases occurring between 2002 and 2012 from the Ontario (Canada) Domestic Violence Death Review Committee to examine the presence and frequency of these barriers within the sample. Using two-step cluster analysis, different profiles of barriers were identified that centred on victims’ fear, social isolation and mental health. The study is limited in being a post hoc analysis of homicides and no causal links can be made. The implications of this finding are discussed in the context of risk assessment, risk management and safety planning.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.361 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology Crime and LawSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207