“A footnote in the file”: are we Doing enough to attend to children’s experiences of intimate partner violence in out-of-home care settings?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the past few decades, there has been an increasing recognition that many youth in out-of-home treatment settings have experienced complex trauma due to childhood experiences of intimate partner violence (CEIPV). These experiences may contribute to the internalizing and externalizing problematic behaviors that precipitate their placement in such programs. Using retrospective file review, this exploratory study aimed to explore the mechanisms within children’s mental health settings for determining CEIPV, including screening, assessment and other avenues of disclosure and to consider possible avenues for addressing CEIPV. Fifty files were selected for review, and after screening for CEIPV, 26 files remained in the sample and underwent a detailed review and data extraction process. The review identified significant gaps in documentation related to CEIPV, specific to identification and assessment, which may interfere with important intervention and prevention efforts within such settings. Practice implications and recommendations for improving assessment and intervention efforts to address these issues within out-of-home care settings are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".