Female Same-Sex Bidirectional Intimate Partner Violence in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there exists a growing body of research on female same-sex intimate partner violence (FSSIPV) as well as bidirectional intimate partner violence (BIPV) among lesbian women, much of this literature focuses on the IPV experience of women living in Western societies such as the United States. The current study represents the very first to explore BIPV among lesbian women in China. In this study, we analyze a survey sample of 225 self-identified lesbian women in China to examine FSSBIPV patterns, pattern-specific rates, and risk factors of FSSBIPV. Using the Latent Class Analysis technique, we discover three main patterns of partner abuse, including bidirectional psychological violence (60%), bidirectional violence multiple types with physical abuse (79.1%), and minimal violence (20.9%). Logistic regressions show that there is no significant demographic, socioeconomic, or attitudinal difference between the bidirectional psychological violence group and the minimal violence group while being younger, cohabitating, and holding pro-IPV attitudes significantly predicted higher odds of experiencing multiple types of bidirectional violence. Contributions to the literature, as well as policy implications, are 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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".