Broadening the ‘Survivor Capsule’ of Intimate Partner Violence Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study responds to a need to expand current understandings of the ways in which counselling services for intimate partner violence (IPV) address trauma. From the perspectives of fifteen women who accessed IPV counselling services in Ontario, Canada, this feminist intersectional study used constructivist grounded theory methods to explore how services help women heal from trauma. Specifically, the study aimed to understand how counselling services meet the needs of survivors of IPV and respond to their complex identities and experiences of trauma and oppression. Findings exemplify the theoretical concept of a survivor capsule, illustrating ways in which women’s unique lives often do not fit into current IPV services, showing a need for more complex intersectional understandings of women’s experiences of IPV and trauma. These study findings demonstrate the importance of recognising women’s individual needs for multiple services as well as the harm caused when women have to fight to access the services they need. Findings also illustrate the instrumental role of counsellors who provide validation, are connected with women’s experiences, and are knowledgeable about IPV and trauma. Finally, suggestions are put forward for ways in which service providers can create spaces of acceptance rather than services that are stigmatising.
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 | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".