Intimate partner aggression during the early parenting years: The role of dissatisfaction with division of labor and childcare.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The high rates of intimate partner aggression (IPA) among new parents may be partly due to changes in couples' division of household labor and childcare, which disproportionately negatively impact women. This is the first study to examine the association between division of labor dissatisfaction and IPA perpetration across genders, while also examining whether such dissatisfaction is specifically associated with IPA during conflicts about division of labor issues. Quarterly for one year, 109 women and 94 men from 111 couples with a first-born child approximately 32 months of age at study commencement described each incident of IPA that occurred during the quarter, including conflict topics and number of aggressive acts perpetrated. Division of labor and childcare comprised the largest portion (30%) of IPA conflict topics. Division of labor dissatisfaction at child age 24 months was positively associated with women's, but not men's, IPA perpetration during conflicts about division of labor issues, but not other topics. A similar pattern of results emerged in the examination of division of childcare dissatisfaction and conflicts about childcare vs. other topics. The discovery that the impact of division of labor and childcare dissatisfaction on IPA perpetration is context- and gender-specific suggests that, among women, a history of dissatisfaction may impair appropriate conflict resolution skills specifically when addressing domains of dissatisfaction. These findings support prevention of women's IPA via nonaggressive strategies for addressing division of labor concerns and promotion of equal opportunities for women and men at home and in the workplace during the early parenting years.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".