Community Prevalence and Risk Factors for Psychological Abuse in India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Violence against women has been recognized by the United Nations as a fundamental violation of women’s human rights. Although there is a good amount of research on physical violence, very little on psychological abuse from Indian researchers. In India too, domestic violence is prevalent in all sections of the community. The objectives of the study are to find the prevalence of psychological abuse in different stratum in India and the risk factors of psychological violence. A cross-sectional study based on 9938 women in rural, urban, and urban non-slum sites across India was conducted in 1998–1999. Logistic regression was done to find the risk factors of psychological violence. Despite the limitations of the 9426 women responded psychological violence, 3306 (35.1%) (95%CI: 23.1, 47.0) reported any psychological abuse in the past 1 year. The women who had lower education, from lower socioeconomic status (SES) and whose mothers-in-law not satisfied with dowry had higher risk for psychological abuse. There was a synergistic effect in psychological abuse if the woman is from low SES and the husband is an alcoholic and the risk is 7.4 times higher as compared to women who did not have both. However, alcoholism had significant independent effect when this was interacted with satisfaction of dowry. We suggest that the families should avoid asking and giving dowries. Besides these, the newly married women should be counseled to handle the conflicts at the family level so that the physical and psychological abuses can be avoided.
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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".