Intimate Partner Violence Among Persons With Mental Health-Related Disabilities in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the elevated risk of intimate partner violence (IPV) among persons with mental health-related disabilities (MH-RD) and the extent to which known risk factors accounted for this phenomenon. Data were drawn from a nationally representative sample of 33,127 Canadians collected in 2014 as part of Statistics Canada's General Social Survey. Results showed that respondents with MH-RD had more than three-fold increased odds of both overall and severe IPV victimization. Although females were more likely to possess a MH-RD, males and females with MH-RD reported similarly elevated odds of IPV victimization. Risk factors that contributed to a significant reduction in elevated odds of IPV for respondents with MH-RD were child maltreatment (CM), respondents' nonprescription drug abuse, and perpetrators' jealous, monitoring, and socially isolating behaviors. The inability to test additional risk factors and bidirectionality in the relationship between MH-RD and IPV may have contributed to the failure to fully account for these respondents' elevated odds of IPV. Future research is needed to understand the complex mechanisms contributing to the elevated risk of IPV and enhance prevention and intervention strategies for this underresearched and underserved vulnerable population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".