HETEROSEXUAL AND SEXUALLY DIVERSE OLDER ADULTS’ LIFETIME EXPERIENCE OF IPV: FINDINGS FROM THE CLSA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study addresses knowledge gaps concerning prevalence and risk factors for intimate partner violence (IPV) among lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) compared to heterosexual Canadians aged 50+. Data derive from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA), a national cohort study with follow-up every 3 years for 20 years or until death. Participants who reported having ever been in an intimate partner relationship (n=11,727) who answered ‘yes’ to at least one item on the Composite Abuse Scale (Revised) – Short Form (CASR-SF) which was used to assess the prevalence of lifetime and past-year exposure to IPV and IPV types were included in this analysis. Main explanatory variables are sexual orientation and gender identity. Overall prevalence (exposure to any type) of IPV was 23.1% (16.6% among males; 29.1% among females) (p< 0.001). The lifetime prevalence rate was highest among LB women (35.8%), followed by GB men (29.3%), heterosexual women (29.0%) and heterosexual men (16.2%) (P< 0.001). The most common type of IPV was psychological (18%), with highest prevalence among LB women (27.5%) followed by heterosexual women (23.2%), GB men (20.4%) and heterosexual men (12.8%) (P < 0.001). The pattern of higher rates among sexually diverse woman and men then among their heterosexual age mates was also seen in lifetime experience of physical and sexual IPV. Recognition and prevention of IPV among sexually diverse older adults has been largely overlooked despite the fact that the IPV rates among same sex couples are reported to be similar or higher in comparison to opposite sex couples.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".