A review of pro-arrest, pro-charge, and pro-prosecution policies as a response to domestic violence
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
Summary The focus of this scoping review was to understand the overall state of research activity related to pro-arrest, pro-charge, and pro-prosecution policies in Canada. The review identified 295 articles, academic (47.5%) and gray literature (52.5%) published between 1983 and 2018 that reported on these policies as a response to domestic violence in Canada. Findings The findings acknowledged growing concerns over the ineffectiveness of these policies as a response to domestic violence. In fact, over half of the articles (57.6%) either failed to support these policies or recommended significant revisions; only a small number of articles (1.0%) favored these policies in their current form. Themes related to the effectiveness of these policies included criminalization and public awareness, survivor satisfaction, standardized police response, removal of burden from survivor to charge, and better than nothing. Themes related to the ineffectiveness included disconnect between policy and practice, revictimizes survivors, one-size fits all approach, have not adequately reduced domestic violence in Canada, lack of understanding training and education for all, failure to address structural and systemic factors, lack of trust in the criminal justice system, and success has been difficult to measure. Applications The deconstruction of these policies in this review points to the need for future research to address identified gaps in the literature and to explore alternatives that serve their intended emancipatory effect.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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