MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318614592 · doi:10.1093/pch/18.8.419

Children’s exposure to intimate partner violence: Impacts and interventions

2013· article· en· W4318614592 on OpenAlexafffund
C. Nadine Wathen, Harriet L. MacMillan

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityWestern University
FundersInstitute of Neurosciences, Mental Health and AddictionInstitute of Gender and HealthCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychological interventionDomestic violenceEnvironmental healthPsychologyMedicineSuicide preventionPoison controlPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

E xposure of a child or adolescent to any incident of violent or threatening behaviour or abuse between adults who are, or have been, intimate partners or family members is defined as a form of child maltreatment (1), and is associated with increased risk of psychological, social, emotional and behavioural problems. Intimate partner violence (IPV) includes not only physical aggression, such as hitting, kicking and beating, but also emotional abuse, through behaviours such as humiliation, intimidation and controlling actions (eg, isolation from family and friends). Previously, children were described as 'witnessing' IPV, but more recently, 'exposure to' is preferred because 'witnessing' was perceived by some to focus on direct observation. Children can experience the harms associated with IPV through awareness of violence between caregivers, even if they have never directly observed any acts of 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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations118
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207