MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3199891203 · doi:10.4324/9780203828977-20

Running Same-Sex Batterer Groups: Critical Refl ections on the New York City Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project and the Toronto David Kelley Services’ Partner Assault Response Program

2011· article· en· W3199891203 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jesmen Mendoza and Diane R. Dolan-Soto

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLesbianTransgenderDomestic violenceQueerCriminologyPsychologySociologyGender studiesPoison controlSuicide preventionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Services for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ) partner abuse are needed and important. However, to successfully address the issue of LGBTQ partner abuse, communities need to take a two-pronged approach to this issue. First and foremost is the provision of services for victims and the families impacted by LGBTQ partner abuse in delivering a coordinated approach to intervening with this societal problem. The second prong of this approach involves addressing the abusive behavior of batterers. Services for LGBTQ partner abuse have been limited and primarily focused on victims. A cursory survey of the literature that we conducted confi rms this gap in service. The gap however, is even more pronounced when one considers the lack of research on batterers in LGBTQ partner abuse (Murray, Mobley, Buford, and Seaman-DeJohn 2008; Schwartz and Waldo 2004). Despite the limited research, batterer programs for LGBTQ abusers have developed in some major city centers across North America.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.701
Threshold uncertainty score0.595

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIntimate Partner and Family Violence→French-language works237,207→