MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403070407 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v16n9p49

The Effect of Intimate Partner Violence on Child Undernutrition in Zambia

2024· article· en· W4403070407 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yusuke Kamiya, Arisa Igaki

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPoverty, Education, and Child Welfare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalnutritionDomestic violencePsychologyHuman factors and ergonomicsDevelopmental psychologyEnvironmental healthPoison controlMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a critical global issue affecting millions of individuals and constitutes a serious violation of human rights. In Zambia, an estimated 41% of women aged 15–49 years have experienced physical and/or sexual IPV at least once in their lifetime. This study assessed the effect of mothers’ experience of IPV on child undernutrition in Zambia. We analyzed data pooled from three rounds of nationally representative cross-sectional household surveys (Zambia Demographic and Health Survey: ZDHS-2007, ZDHS-2013/14, and ZDHS-2018), including 29 817 children under 5 years of age. Results from multivariate multilevel logistic regression analyses showed that mothers’ exposure to emotional violence significantly increased the likelihood of stunting among girls (OR = 1.145, p = 0.037). The negative effects of mothers’ exposure to IPV were confirmed for both less severe and severe violence on girls’ stunting (OR = 1.214, p = 0.001 and OR = 1.230, p = 0.011, respectively). Nonetheless, mothers’ experience of IPV had no significant effects on underweight or wasting among girls, nor on any indicator of undernutrition among boys. Protecting mothers from IPV could be beneficial for improving child development in Zambia.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicPoverty, Education, and Child WelfareFrench-language works237,207