Intimate Partner Violence, Legal Systems and Barriers for African American Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although many African American IPV survivors need services, they often do not access care. Hopelessness may partially explain low rates in help-seeking for this population and serve as a significant barrier to care for African American IPV survivors particularly those who have had prior legal system involvement. In a sample of 185 African American women, we first examined whether hopelessness mediated the relation between IPV and barriers to services. If such a mediation effect was found, we then would explore whether legal system involvement moderated the mediated effect of hopelessness on the relation between IPV and barriers to services. As anticipated, hopelessness partially served to explain (i.e., mediated) the relation between IPV and barriers to services. Further, this mediated effect was moderated by legal system involvement such that when legal system involvement was included as a moderator, hopelessness mediated the association between IPV and barriers to services only for those survivors who had been involved with the legal system. These results underscore the critical role of hopelessness as a barrier to accessing services for African American IPV survivors, especially those with prior involvement with the legal system. Recommendations are offered that underscore the importance of interventions that empower African American women who have survived violence instead of penalizing them.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".