Biopsychosocial risk factors for intimate partner violence perpetration and victimization in adolescents and adults reported after the COVID-19 pandemic onset: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to provide a comprehensive summary of the biological, psychological, and sociological risk factors for intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization and perpetration reported after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. INTRODUCTION: IPV is a significant public health concern, characterized by various forms of violence inflicted by intimate partners. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic significantly increased the global prevalence of IPV. While prior research has identified factors linked to IPV, the risk factors reported in the literature during this period have not been systematically mapped. Additionally, the similarities and differences in risk factors between perpetration and victimization have not been well delineated. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will focus on individuals aged 12 years or older involved in dyadic romantic relationships. Primary studies and systematic reviews published from the year 2020 will be included. Full-text papers, preprints, theses, and dissertations published in English will be included. Studies focusing on factors unrelated to IPV risk will be excluded. Non-systematic reviews, opinion pieces, and protocols will also be excluded. METHODS: Following the JBI methodology for scoping reviews, systematic searches will be conducted for both peer-reviewed and gray literature. Independent reviewers will screen records, select eligible studies, and extract data using a standardized form. Key risk factors will be mapped to explore their interplay. REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/c2hkm.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".