Physical Intimate Partner Violence: Factors Related to Women’s Contact with Police
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study of 3,226 women asked if physical IPV (intimate partner violence), injury, concern for personal safety, and demographic characteristics affected their reporting of the IPV to police. Logistic regressions with data from the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey showed that likelihood of such reporting was associated in a positive direction with ( a) having been physically abused 31 or more times in the preceding year, ( b) injury, ( c) concern for personal safety, ( d) family income of $25,000–$49,999, and ( e) education. Moreover, likelihood of women’s contact with police was associated in a negative direction with other minority ethnicity. In contrast, no associations were found between likelihood of police contact and ( a) having been physically abused 30 or fewer times in the preceding year, ( b) African-American ethnicity, ( c) Latina ethnicity, ( d) age, ( e) being married, and ( f) perpetration of violence by current, rather than former, partner. Implications for IPV awareness and education programs are noted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".