A Scoping Review of Intimate Partner Violence Research in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is at epidemic levels across low-, middle-, and high-income countries, including Canada, where recent lifetime prevalence indicated that over 40% of women had IPV experiences. In response to this, Canada's federal government has made investments toward IPV prevention and response. We conducted a scoping review of English and French literature identified through searches of multiple databases and specific journals to assess the current state of IPV research in Canada. A total of 267 articles met inclusion criteria of being peer-reviewed research primarily about IPV in either French or English published from 2020 to 2022 with at least one Canadian-affiliated author. Almost a third of studies described services for survivors but did not evaluate service effectiveness. We noted a significant gap in research on the IPV experiences of gender and/or sexual minorities. Canada's federal social science research funding agency was the most common funder, with the two federal government departments with specific IPV funding initiatives in place cited as funding less than 6% of included studies. In general, there remains an overfocus on IPV epidemiology and on descriptions of service use, and not enough research examining the effectiveness and implementation of interventions, especially grounded in theoretical, gendered, and trauma- and violence-informed frameworks. Funders and researchers are encouraged to consider moving resources from ongoing description of well-established factors to assessment and implementation of evidence-informed interventions, and, crucially, primary prevention of IPV and all forms of gender-based violence.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".