FACTEURS ASSOCIÉS À LA SÉCURITÉ ET À LA REPRISE DU POUVOIR DES FEMMES RECEVANT DES SERVICES D’AIDE EN MATIÈRE DE VIOLENCE CONJUGALE : UNE REVUE NARRATIVE DE LA LITTÉRATURE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article présente les résultats d’une revue narrative de la littérature, dont l’objectif est de cibler les principaux facteurs associés à la sécurité et à la reprise du pouvoir des femmes recevant des services en matière de violence conjugale. S’appuyant sur un total de 32 articles publiés entre 2014 et 2019, il propose que cinq facteurs influencent positivement ou négativement la sécurité et la reprise du pouvoir de ces femmes : (1) les ressources internes, (2) la qualité et l’accessibilité des ressources et services offerts dans la communauté, (3) le réseau de soutien social, (4) la situation financière, ainsi que (5) le séjour en maison d’hébergement et les services reçus de la part de ressources spécialisées en matière de violence conjugale. Malgré certaines limites qui sont abordées dans l’article, cette revue narrative permet de mettre en lumière des pistes intéressantes pour la recherche et les pratiques d’intervention auprès des femmes victimes de violence conjugale.
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 | 0.011 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".