MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4399200892 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxad079

Recognizing and responding to children with suspected exposure to intimate partner violence between caregivers

2024· review· en· W4399200892 on OpenAlexaffabout
Melissa Kimber, Jill R. McTavish, Michelle Shouldice, Michelle Ward, Harriet L. MacMillan

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsCanadian Paediatric Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDomestic violencePsychologySecrecyAction (physics)Poison controlSuicide preventionClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyMedicineMedical emergencyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children's exposure to intimate partner violence (CEIPV) between parents and other caregivers accounts for nearly half of all cases investigated and substantiated by child welfare authorities in Canada. The emotional, physical, and behavioural impairments associated with CEIPV are similar to effects of other forms of child maltreatment. The identification of children and youth who have been exposed to intimate partner violence (IPV) can be challenging due to the non-specific behaviours sometimes associated with such exposure, and the stigma and secrecy that often characterize IPV. Also, responding safely to children and youth with suspected CEIPV can be complicated by the need to consider the safety and well-being of a non-offending caregiver. This position statement presents an evidence-informed approach developed by the Violence, Evidence, Guidance, Action (VEGA) Project for the safe recognition and response to children and youth who are suspected of being exposed to IPV.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicIntimate Partner and Family Violence→French-language works237,207→