Evidence-based practice principles applied to domestic violence programmes for offenders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter discusses some principles that provide direction for the design of domestic violence interventions likely to reduce male perpetration of abuse against their female partners. Under the influence of research on evidenced-based practice in the effective corrections literature, correctional programmes have been developed in Canada, the UK, the US, Australia, and New Zealand based on the principles of risk-need-responsivity (RNR) proposed by Andrews and his colleagues. Advocates have critiqued the emphasis on anger management in the treatment of partner violence perpetrators, going so far in many states in the US to prohibit the use of anger management interventions in their treatment guidelines. A key element of responsivity is the development of programme content sensitive to diversity. Culture and its impact in establishing the gender roles of women and men and proscribing appropriate intimate behaviour is perhaps more critical in interventions related to intimate partner violence (IPV) than in any other area of correctional intervention.
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 | 0.087 | 0.111 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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".