Factors Shaping Gay Men’s Experience of Intimate Partner Violence: An Ecological View
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gay men are particularly at risk for intimate partner violence (IPV). As regards the prevalence and unique consequences of IPV, many studies seek to understand the specific stressors faced by gay men, but few provide a more comprehensive perspective of IPV-related factors, including gay men-specific, general as well as protective factors. An ecological perspective was used to conduct a qualitative study aimed at identifying the different risk and protective factors related to IPV among gay men. We conducted individual semi-structured interviews with 23 gay men who acknowledge having experienced IPV by another man, as well as two focus groups with practitioners who provide services to this population. Our analysis led to a five-level ecological model, ranging from most proximal (e.g. prior victimization) to distal (e.g. conception of masculinity) factors, and including both general factors (e.g. power dynamics) and factors specific to gay men. Heterosexism emerged as an overarching contributing sociocultural factor. This study sheds new light on mechanisms whereby these factors affect the IPV experience, namely the risk of being victimized; the recognition of IPV victimization; and the response to the IPV experienced. These mechanisms are discussed along with heterosexism-related factors, and implications for research and practices are suggested.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".