Intimate Partner Violence and Work: A Scoping Review of Published Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasingly, intimate partner violence (IPV) is recognized as having important impacts on work. The purpose of this scoping review is to describe the nature and extent of research on IPV and workers, the workplace, and/or employment. Using multiple search strategies, including searches conducted by a professional librarian from database inception to May 2018, 2,306 unique articles were retrieved and independently screened for eligibility by two team members. A total of 235 articles met predefined inclusion criteria, which were that articles must: (1) report findings of a research study, (2) be published in a peer-reviewed journal, and (3) be focused on IPV and the workplace, workers, and/or employment. The most common topics examined were the relationship between IPV and employment, IPV- and work-related factors, and the impacts of IPV on work. Most articles were quantitative and cross-sectional and focused on the abuse of women by men. Major research gaps include evaluations of interventions to address IPV and work and research focused on the experiences and needs of perpetrators and gender and sexual minorities. Further evidence synthesis is recommended in several areas and implications for policy and practice 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 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 | 0.011 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.031 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".