“Body and Soul Pain”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Violence is a problem to be understood in an interdisciplinary way. This qualitative study aimed to understand the conception of women who experienced marital violence and structurally analyze their social support networks. Five women who reported their spouses to the Women’s Police Station (DECCM) and were being monitored by the Technical Team of the Women’s Emergency Support Service (SAPEM) were interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire. A constructive-interpretive analysis was performed to identify the conceptions of experience of marital violence and through the Calgary Family Assessment Model (CFAM) it was possible to make an analysis and a graphic representation of the social support network for the women participating in this study. In general, it was observed that all women understand physical violence as actions that cause damage to the human anatomical and physiological structure. However, their conceptions are not limited to physical injury; they are also related to affective issues. For the participants, conjugal violence is not fragmented into “types of violence”, on the contrary, it occurs “agglutinated”, affecting the body and soul. Regarding the development of women’s social support network, they all have a family member as support – usually sons/daughters or mothers – and most of them count on the SAPEM technical team. The police station/police is also part of the network. Therefore, these tactics used in the social support network structure have different mechanisms by which the women reorganized their stories, electing some people and/or institutions, excluding others, highlighting this or that person and/or institution to make them agents for minimizing threatening behavior to themselves and their families. These people, when called in, seem to act either to curb violence and to strengthen the couple’s marital bonds or to break these bonds
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".