Gender differences in intimate partner violence: Risk factors and associations with suicide.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study sought to provide updated estimates of the occurrence of intimate partner violence (IPV) in the general adult population of Ireland and to better understand gender-specific profiles of IPV, their risk factors, and their relationship with suicidality. METHOD: = 1,098) from Wave 4 of the Irish arm of the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) study were used. RESULTS: 32.1% of the sample experienced lifetime IPV, with IPV more common among females. Latent class analysis results showed that females had a more complex profile of IPV (four classes) than males (three classes). Risk factors for females included younger age, having children, lower income level, lower social support, and lower social contact, while risk factors for males were living in an urban environment, having children, and lower social support. All IPV exposure was found to be associated with a significantly higher likelihood of experiencing multiple suicide-related phenomena for males and females. CONCLUSION: IPV is a major public social health issue affecting approximately one-in-three females and one-in-four males in Ireland and is strongly associated with suicide-related phenomena. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".