MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322764587 · doi:10.1111/fcre.12715

A survey of mothers' experiences of shared parenting and domestic violence

2023· article· en· W4322764587 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Beth Archer‐Kuhn, Michael Saini, Dora M. Y. Tam, Diane I. N. Trudgill

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily Court Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Calgary
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCoparentingDomestic violencePsychologyContext (archaeology)AnxietyDevelopmental psychologyPoison controlSuicide preventionPsychiatryMedicineEnvironmental healthGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This cross‐sectional survey reports on the experiences and impact of mothers in shared parenting arrangements and their young children ages 0–4 years across three provinces in Canada (Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario). The purpose of the study was to explore shared parenting arrangements in the context of domestic violence, and we sought to recruit mothers from a range of experiences regarding reported violence in their relationships with their ex‐partners. The online survey consisted of standardized tools to measure child development, depression, substance use, and anxiety, extent and severity of domestic violence, and coparenting. Recruiting during the pandemic was challenging, which required various recruitment strategies. The total sample included 84 mothers who completed questionnaires. Findings show that while mothers experienced various forms of domestic violence in shared parenting arrangements, experiences of coercive control were most evident. Implications are identified and discussed in relation to parenting plans, shared parenting and all forms of domestic violence including coercive control.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.522
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFamily Court ReviewSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207