MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2985254244 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.50.3.002

Physical Intimate Partner Violence: Factors Related to Women’s Contact with Police

2019· article· en· W2985254244 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tyrone C. Cheng, Celia C. Lo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDomestic violenceEthnic groupPsychologyDemographyLogistic regressionPhysical abuseIntimate partnerPoison controlClinical psychologyInjury preventionMedicineEnvironmental healthSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score0.698

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207