Same-Sex Intimate Partner Violence in Canada: Prevalence, Characteristics, and Types of Incidents Reported to Police Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the past 50 years, there has been an increase in research and programming initiatives focusing on the issue of heterosexual intimate partner violence (Het-IPV). In comparison, less attention has been paid to same-sex intimate partner violence (SS-IPV). Furthermore, of the existing research, the majority focuses on SS-IPV incidents in the United States which, due to social and legal differences, cannot yield an accurate picture of SS-IPV in Canada. This descriptive study sought to understand the prevalence, characteristics, and types of SS-IPV and Het-IPV within a Canadian context, with an emphasis on understanding the differences and similarities of incidents reported to police services. It explores the influences of heteronormativity and hegemonic masculinity on SS-IPV reporting and recognition. To assess this, data from Statistics Canada’s 2007–2011 Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Surveys were utilized. Participation in this survey is mandatory for all police services and, therefore, the sample used contains over 99% of incidents of IPV reported in Canada during the 4-year period ( N = 346,565). The results indicate that 4% of incidents of intimate partner violence reported to the UCR involved people engaged in same-sex relationships. It demonstrates that SS-IPV incidents are similar to Het-IPV incidents in reported prevalence, and the findings also show that there are differences in the types of violations reported and several incident characteristics, including levels of victim injury, and the population density of the offense location. These findings can provide a foundation for future research and raise further questions about how SS-IPV is responded to by the criminal justice system after it has been reported to police services.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".