MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406045168 · doi:10.1108/sc-06-2024-0033

What experts say about domestic violence: constructing Thailand’s domestic violence severity index through an expert judgement approach

2025· article· en· W4406045168 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSafer Communities · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDomestic violenceJudgementIndex (typography)Human factors and ergonomicsPoison controlOccupational safety and healthSuicide preventionInjury preventionMedical emergencyCriminologyPsychologyPolitical scienceMedicineLawComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose While many countries have adopted traditional approaches to identify patterns and trends in domestic violence at a national level, a strategy that provides more insightful information is still lacking. In response to this need, the purpose of this study is to propose the construction of a domestic violence severity index (DVSI) as an alternative. This index serves as a strategic instrument for policymakers and law enforcement agencies, enabling them to monitor changes in the overall severity of domestic violence incidents over time, beyond relying solely on the volume of reported incidents. Design/methodology/approach Reported domestic violence incidents are collected over the past five years (2019–2023) from the entire country. Unlike sentence-based approaches such as the Cambridge Crime Harm Index and the Canadian Crime Severity Index, the DVSI applies a crime severity index based on expert judgment to assess the seriousness of domestic violence categories. Twenty-three experts with extensive experience in domestic violence issues across various governmental and nongovernmental organizations participated in providing assessments. To ensure consistency in assigning weight values to the domestic violence categories, the average scores provided by experts were calculated using arithmetic mean, median, mode and geometric mean. Findings Domestic violence maps reflecting trends between 2019 and 2023 across 77 provinces in Thailand have been generated based on the index data. The maps depict significant serial and spatial correlation levels from 2019 to 2023. Practical implications These maps carry significant implications for the country’s domestic violence prevention strategy by offering detailed insights into the geographical locations and periods requiring focused attention and resource allocation from the government. This tool can also aid the public in gaining a better understanding of the prevalence of domestic violence in society, facilitating increased coordination and collaboration among stakeholders. Originality/value Many countries quantify domestic violence using simple methods, such as calculating percentages or measuring incidents per 100,000 population. However, a specific DVSI has not yet been developed to analyze and understand domestic violence trends geographically, which could serve as an additional measure to protect victims. In addition, the study uses an expert judgment approach, a rare method in constructing a crime severity index, especially in the context of domestic 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.484
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.316 · 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