In the jaws of death: Surviving women's experience of male intimate terrorism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To explore the meaning of male intimate terrorism, its evolvement and its impact on women from the perspective of female survivors. DESIGN: The Vancouver School of Doing Phenomenology. METHODS: Nine women were interviewed 1-3 times, in all 16 interviews. The interviews were from 68 to 172 min (average 87 min). Data analysis was done through interpretive thematic analysis. RESULTS: For the surviving women, the intimate terrorism was a horrendous experience and they felt in the 'jaws of death'. The violence got worse over time from the entrapment phase where the men were obsessed with the women and monitored them, to the silencing phase, where the men silenced the women and the death phase, where the women felt as shadows of themselves. The women also described the awakening and recovery phases. The men's intense psychological aggression, marital rape and attempts to strangle them, were the gravest aspects of intimate terrorism and what contributed to them eventually feeling psychologically 'more than dead'. CONCLUSION: What is most striking in the findings is how the fundamental human rights of the women were violated and how close to death the women came. Nurses need to be knowledgeable about the danger of intimate terrorism, how to screen for it and provide trauma-focused nursing care to women who have been subjected to such trauma. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The women who were interviewed in the study are not patients, but they are part of the public.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".