Virtual Support and Intimate Partner Violence Services: A Scoping Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This article reports on a scoping review that maps the empirical research on virtual intimate partner violence (IPV) interventions. Method Following the Joanna Briggs Institute’s nine-step scoping review methodology, 25 studies were selected. Results The majority of the studies (72%) were published in the United States, and included quantitative (56%), mixed methods (24%), and qualitative study designs (20%). The most frequent focus of the virtual interventions to support survivors of IPV included safety (52%), with other interventions focusing mainly on treatment (36%), and education and prevention (12%). Forms of interventions included interactive, internet-based (72%), smartphone apps (16%), live videoconferencing (8%), and an asynchronous chatroom (4%). Barriers and strengths of virtual IPV interventions are identified. Discussion From this analysis, emerging models in virtual IPV intervention are identified, as well as next steps necessary in virtual IPV practice and research. The article concludes with implications for social work practice and research.
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.
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 | 0.023 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 it