MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391967212 · doi:10.1177/10778012241233002

“Never Give Up. The Creator Has Good Things in Store for You”: Risk Factors, Protective Factors, and Evidence of Resilience for Canadian Indigenous Women Abused by Intimate Partners

2024· article· en· W4391967212 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cindy Ogden, Leslie M. Tutty

Bibliographic record

VenueViolence Against Women · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDomestic violenceIndigenousPovertyPsychological resiliencePoison controlChild abuseSuicide preventionDistressPsychiatryMental healthPsychologyProtective factorInjury preventionClinical psychologyMedicineEnvironmental healthSocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canadian Indigenous women often experience severe partner violence and child abuse, but few studies holistically examine risk and protective factors and evidence of resilience that affect their well-being. This mixed-methods secondary analysis explored the experiences of 40 Canadian Indigenous abused women. Risk factors included intimate partner violence (IPV), childhood abuse, poverty, colonization, and disability. Protective factors included formal and informal support, community support, spirituality, and childhood residence. Evidence of resilience is from interview quotes and none of the measures of depression, mental distress, and posttraumatic stress disorder was in the clinical range. Despite significant IPV and childhood abuse, the women's resilience is highlighted.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueViolence Against WomenSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207