MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4385850873 · doi:10.29063/ajrh2022/v26i9.9

Determinants of wife-beating justification amongst men in southern African countries: Evidence from demographic and health surveys.

2022· article· en· W4385850873 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mluleki Tsawe, Karabo Mhele

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWifeDomestic violenceDemographyQuarter (Canadian coin)Developing countrySocioeconomicsPopulationGeneral Social SurveyDemographic economicsMedicineGeographySuicide preventionPsychologyPoison controlEconomic growthEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceSocial psychologySociologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Domestic violence remains a major social challenge in many countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. This study aimed to identify factors associated with wife-beating amongst men and determine the levels of justification. Demographic and Health Survey data from four southern African countries were used. Using a weighted sample of 26 441 men aged 15-49 years; analysis was conducted at bivariate and multivariate levels. The results indicated that a quarter of study participants endorsed wife-beating for at least one reason. The most common justification for abuse was neglecting children and going out without informing the husband. These attitudes varied significantly among countries with the highest prevalence rates observed in Zimbabwe and Zambia. Education and household wealth were the most consistently significant factors across these countries. The study, therefore, recommends that education and household wealth be improved across these countries to reduce the incidence of wife-beating.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicIntimate Partner and Family Violence→French-language works237,207→