Interdepartmental Interaction to Combating Against Domestic Violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of interdepartmental interaction to combating against domestic violence is described. The need for interdepartmental cooperation in combating against domestic violence is highlighted. Interdepartmental cooperation is considered as a coordinated prevention of domestic violence and ensuring effective and practical realization of the rights of victims. Aspects (appearance, meaning, process, result) of domestic violence are described. It is stated that the act of domestic violence is a planned, conscious, controlled process. It is proved that in accordance with international standards and domestic legislation, interdepartmental cooperation is carried out both in the field of prevention and combating domestic violence. A socio-pedagogical model of domestic violence prevention is developed. The use of the model makes it possible to describe not only the long-term relationships between its components, but also to determine the potential ability of individual components in the future to restore equilibrium. In general, the developed socio and pedagogical model of prevention of domestic violence will effectively to combating against domestic violence and its recurrence. Presented analysis demonstrates the benefits of comprehensively reflecting the interagency relationships between different organizations and victims of domestic violence.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".