MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315752588 · doi:10.1177/10778012221150275

A Review of Intimate Partner Violence Interventions Relevant to Women During the COVID-19 Pandemic

2023· review· en· W4315752588 on OpenAlexaff
Lori E. Weeks, Christie Stilwell, Melissa Rothfus, Alyssa J. Weeks, Marilyn Macdonald, Lois Jackson, Suzanne Dupuis‐Blanchard, Andrea Carson, Elaine Moody, Heather Helpard, Anika Daclan

Bibliographic record

VenueViolence Against Women · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MonctonKellogg's (Canada)St. Francis Xavier UniversityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicDomestic violencePsychological interventionContext (archaeology)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DistancingPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsSuicide preventionMedicineSocial distancePublic relationsMedical emergencyPsychologyCriminologyInternet privacyNursingPolitical scienceComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Women have experienced increased rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) since the onset of the COVID-19 global pandemic, and at the same time requirements for physical distancing and/or remote delivery of services have created challenges in accessing services. We synthesized research evidence from 4 systematic reviews and 20 individual studies to address how IPV interventions can be adapted within the context of the pandemic. As many interventions have been delivered via various technologies, access to technology is of particular importance during the pandemic. Our results can inform the provision of services during the remainder of the COVID-19 pandemic including how to support women who have little access to in-person services.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueViolence Against WomenSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207