The Temporality of Intimate Partner Violence – How an Understanding of Time and Gendered Threats Can Foster Protection-Positive Outcomes
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
Abstract This article brings together temporality and gender in the refugee process and examines how refugee determination bodies and courts have interpreted gendered threats, as a specific form of intimate partner violence. A case law review of jurisdictions (that include Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK) is conducted, revealing a flawed temporal phenomenon where decision-makers have focused primarily on the exogenous aspect of threats, namely, whether there is a real chance of a threat being actuated in the future, and have largely failed to assess the endogenous, psychological dimension of the threat, that encompasses past, present, and future aspects of time. The practice of treating threats of violence as a potential future harm rather than an already occurring harm exhibits an obvious privileging of the future over the present that is not rooted in the empirical evidence on intimate partner violence. Further, the predominant focus by decision-makers on isolated future events as harm fails to accommodate the broad temporal dimensions of systemic intimate partner violence, best suited to a predicament-based model of being persecuted. This article explores the temporal shortcomings and gendered interpretations that underpin this erroneous practice in case law, finding that the temporal governance of refugee law is still largely shaped by the male gaze and conceptualisations of masculinity and femininity, which contributes to the limited recognition of threats as a form of harm in themselves.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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