MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362505848 · doi:10.1177/10778012231166408

“He Tells People That I Am Going to Kill My Children”: Post-Separation Coercive Control in Men Who Perpetrate IPV

2023· article· en· W4362505848 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Leslie M. Tutty, H. Lorraine Radtke, Kendra Nixon

Bibliographic record

VenueViolence Against Women · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of LethbridgeAlberta Centre for Child, Family and Community ResearchSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of AlbertaPrairieaction FoundationAlberta Heritage Foundation for Medical ResearchUniversity of Regina
KeywordsStalkingSuicide preventionPoison controlPsychologyScale (ratio)Separation (statistics)Human factors and ergonomicsControl (management)Injury preventionSocial psychologyCriminologyMedicineMedical emergencyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relatively little research has examined men's use of coercive controlling tactics against female partners after separation. This mixed-methods secondary analysis of 346 Canadian women documented coercive controlling tactics used by their ex-partners (86.4% identified at least one). The composite abuse scale emotional abuse subscale and women being older were associated with men using coercive control tactics post-separation. A secondary qualitative analysis of in-depth interviews with a sub-sample of 34 women provided additional examples. Abusive partners used numerous strategies to coercively control their ex-partners by stalking/harassing them, using financial abuse and discrediting the women to various authorities. Considerations for future research are presented.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.424
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.003

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations22
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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