Children in domestic violence shelters: Does the feminist perspective collapse?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY: Even though an extensive body of literature on children has swept the field of domestic violence in the last 30 years, little is known about how domestic violence shelter workers understand children's situations and how they intervene with them. This article seeks to address this gap in the literature, and presents the results of a study conducted with 48 advocates in the province of Québec (Canada). FINDINGS: The data suggest that most of the participants adopt a child-centred perspective and consider the children in their own right during their stay. The accounts of the participants' practices also reveal that they perceive children as being vulnerable and at-risk. With a moderate emphasis on vulnerability and risk, the participants tend to support the children alongside their mothers, while associating potential risks with the behaviour of the perpetrator of domestic violence. However, with a strong focus on vulnerability and risk, participants tend to cast aside the perpetrators' behaviour and monitor the women-as-mothers during their stay while associating potential risk with their [in]actions under the circumstances. This can lead to mother-blaming, surveillance and more authoritarian interactions. APPLICATIONS: The understanding of children living with domestic violence needs to remain rooted in a feminist analysis of violence against women in order to avoid some of the issues highlighted in the article. Furthermore, studies that seek to shed light on best social work practices when working with children in alliance with their mothers from a feminist perspective are crucially needed.
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 | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".