Cumulative Contexts of Vulnerability to Intimate Partner Violence Among Women With Disabilities, Elderly Women, and Immigrant Women: Prevalence, Risk Factors, Explanatory Theories, and Prevention
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some groups of women are more vulnerable to intimate partner violence (IPV) due to particular risks and/or experiences: women with disabilities, elderly women, and immigrant women (DEI). Too often, their reality goes unnoticed, especially for those belonging to more than one of these groups. In this literature review, researchers used an intersectional approach to document the similarities and differences in how DEI women experience IPV, in terms of forms and consequences, as well as related risk factors, explanatory theories, and prevention strategies. Researchers selected 56 articles for review based on the following inclusion criteria: studies on adults living in a situation of IPV, studies on one of the three demographics under study (DEI), studies about one or multiple research questions, and studies based on empirical data relying on research methodology in either French or English. Researchers evaluated each selected article for its quality according to a chart that was specially developed for this review. The results highlight existing "intersections" between these groups to help understand the influence of belonging to more than one vulnerability group on these women's experiences with IPV. The importance to better training social workers and developing policies and programs that target the social determinants of health to prevent IPV experienced by DEI is also discussed.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it