Preliminary study of the role of social support in cycles of intimate partner violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Parents’ experiences of IPV are associated with an increased risk for their children to experience IPV. However, the factors that may contribute to intergenerational IPV, particularly between adult mothers and daughters, are still poorly understood. To fill this gap in the literature, this preliminary study examines the moderating role of social support in IPV cycles among Cameroonian mother-daughter dyads.Method: Sixty-one mother-daughter dyads completed questionnaires individually. We performed moderation analysis to examine if the association between mothers’ experiences of IPV and daughters’ experiences of IPV was moderated by daughters’ social support.Results: Results showed that social support influences the strength of the association between mothers’ and daughters’ IPV victimization. As levels of social support reported by daughters increased, the strength of the association between their and their mothers’ experiences of IPV victimization decreased. At high levels of social support, this association was no longer significant (b = 0.09, SE = 0.27, t = 0.34, p > .05).Conclusion: Support from family and friends is important in contexts of intergenerational IPV; thus, interventions aimed at preventing and reducing IPV may aim to strengthen these informal support systems to mitigate the effect of 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".