Coercive control and risk in intimate partner violence: are Canadian police prepared to assess?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coercive control is an ongoing pattern of abuse that is intended to isolate, humiliate, degrade, and micro-regulate the everyday life of a victim; often found amongst intimate partner violence (IPV) situations yet may not present with physical evidence. Police officers are called to respond to these conditions, yet are limited by training, legislation, and risk assessment tools that often concentrate primarily on the presence of physical violence alone. An online survey was distributed to police officers across Canada to understand how they explore, and respond to IPV and coercive control, and what they consider to be the most pertinent risk factors when assessing the severity of a situation. Findings reveal that police officers continue to emphasise perpetrator behaviours that involve physical violence and serious physical harm. As Canada is currently considering the possibility of criminalising coercive control, results highlight that further training and improved risk assessment tools will be necessary in order for police to be able to effectively respond.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 it