Intimate Partner Violence: A Bibliometric Review of Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a worldwide public health problem. Here, a bibliometric analysis is performed to evaluate the publications in the Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) field from 2000 to 2019 based on the Science Citation Index (SCI) Expanded and the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) databases. This work presents a detailed overview of IPV from aspects of types of articles, citations, h-indices, languages, years, journals, institutions, countries, and author keywords. The results show that the USA takes the leading position in this research field, followed by Canada and the U.K. The University of North Carolina has the most publications and Harvard University has the first place in terms of h-index. The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine leads the list of average citations per paper. The Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Journal of Family Violence and Violence Against Women are the top three most productive journals in this field, and Psychology is the most frequently used subject category. Keywords analysis indicates that, in recent years, most research focuses on the research fields of “child abuse”, “pregnancy”, “HIV”, “dating violence”, “gender-based violence” and “adolescents”.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".