Responding to intimate partner violence (IPV) in Ontario, Canada: A closer look at police involvement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past 20 years, Ontario child welfare agencies have seen an exponential increase in referrals for exposure to intimate partner violence (IPV) for children. Using a mixed methods approach, this paper examines the causes and consequences of the exponential increase in the incidence rates of IPV exposure between 1993 and 2013, providing important context for a maltreatment type that is not well understood in Ontario. The incidence of investigations related to IPV was derived and compared across cycles of the provincially representative Ontario Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (OIS) (1993, 1998, 2003, 2008, and 2013) and informational interviews were conducted with the primary referral source of IPV-related investigations, police departments, to understand the increase in referrals. Short term service dispositions were also compared across cycles. After the nearly two-fold increase of investigations for all maltreatment types in Ontario between 1998 and 2003, IPV investigations are the only type of maltreatment that continued to increase. In 2013, IPV was the most investigated and substantiated form of maltreatment, without a corresponding increase in the number of cases receiving ongoing services. The continued growth in the proportion of child welfare investigations for exposure to IPV that do not receive ongoing child protection services is a significant concern for Ontario. Intersystem collaboration between police, child welfare, and community services is needed to reduce repeated re-referrals and meet the needs of families experiencing IPV.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".