Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies on intimate partner violence in sub-Saharan Africa and Ghana focused mainly on male-perpetrated violence, with little emphasis on female-perpetrated abuse and the factors influencing it. Using nationally representative cross-sectional data collected in 2017 from a sample of 2,289 Ghanaian women and applying regression techniques, this study explored the determinants of female-perpetrated violence. Results indicate that a substantial proportion of respondents perpetrated emotional violence against their partners; few used physical or sexual violence. Victims of intimate partner violence were more likely to perpetrate violence against their partners than those who had never been victimised. Women were more likely to perpetrate specific types of violence (physical, sexual or emotional) if they: thought their partners were controlling; expected to encounter violence in the future; thought their relationships had some level of tension; and/or were exposed to violence in their early childhood. The findings provide qualified support for the proposition that women perpetrate violence against their partners for reasons of self-defence but also show that the violence is mutual and bidirectional. The findings point to the complexities of the context of the violence perpetrated by women and suggest that domestic violence interventions should acknowledge these complexities.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".