MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3207863141 · doi:10.1177/10778012211034215

Intimate Partner Violence, Animal Maltreatment, and Concern for Animal Safekeeping: A Survey of Survivors Who Owned Pets and Livestock

2021· article· en· W3207863141 on OpenAlexaff
Crystal J. Giesbrecht

Bibliographic record

VenueViolence Against Women · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDomestic violenceLivestockLegislationEnvironmental healthPoison controlSuicide preventionAnimal welfareAnimal-assisted therapyOccupational safety and healthMedicineRentingDomestic animalHuman factors and ergonomicsInjury preventionSocioeconomicsBusinessVeterinary medicinePet therapyGeographyPolitical scienceSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An online survey was completed by victims/survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV), living in both urban and rural areas, who owned pets and/or livestock. The majority of the sample had not received services from domestic violence shelters and services. Quantitative and qualitative data regarding barriers to accessing support and escaping IPV are presented for both pet and livestock owners. Using validated measures of IPV and animal abuse, differences in experiences of IPV are described for victims who had experienced their partners mistreat their animals and those who had not. Recommendations are offered for training, legislation, and pet-friendly domestic violence shelters and rental housing.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueViolence Against WomenSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207