Les violences conjugales, familiales et structurelles : vers une perspective intégrative des savoirs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conjugal violence is a serious and persistent social problem; one-third of all women globally have been a victim of it. This article will discuss the empirical and theoretical links between conjugal, domestic, and structural violence. The article will start with a short background describing how conjugal violence has been shaped as a socio-criminal problem in Québec. It will then identify the primary knowledge gaps in the field, thereby demonstrating the need to better understand the complex links between conjugal, domestic, and structural violence, three concepts whose definitions could be enhanced and made mutually complementary. The article will stress the importance of considering the diverse realities faced by those involved in these types of violence (women, men, and children), focusing on a broad analysis that integrates not only individual and interpersonal factors but also social and structural factors, in particular oppression based on gender or other social identity markers. The discussion will be enhanced by theoretical models that describe various dynamics of conjugal and domestic violence, as well as by intersectional feminism, which has proved useful in analyzing structural violence. The conclusion will deal with the possible effects of analyzing links between conjugal, family, and structural violence on social policy and intervention programs for victims, committers, and children exposed to conjugal 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".