MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406132465 · doi:10.1007/s13178-024-01070-8

Gender and Sexual Orientation in Canadian Intimate Partner Violence Research: A Focused Mapping Review and Synthesis

2025· article· en· W4406132465 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jennifer C. D. MacGregor, Caitlin Burd, Yetunde A. Ogunpitan, Eden Hoffer, Jaimeson Canie, Najibullah Naeemzadah, C. Nadine Wathen

Bibliographic record

VenueSexuality Research and Social Policy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council
KeywordsSexual orientationInclusion (mineral)PsychologyDomestic violenceSexual minorityTerminologyLesbianCriminologyGender studiesPoison controlSocial psychologySuicide preventionMedicineSociologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a widespread social and health problem disproportionately burdening women and, we are learning, gender and sexual minority (GSM) people, who are under-represented in research. The measurement and reporting of gender and sexual orientation in health and social science research are also inadequate. We conducted a focused mapping review and synthesis to examine the inclusion of GSM people, and the reporting of gender identity and sexual orientation, in Canadian IPV research. Using database searches, hand-searches (November 2022), and citation chaining (April/May 2023), we identified eligible articles that (1) were published in English or French in peer-reviewed journals from 2020 to 2022, (2) reported research involving at least some Canadian IPV survivors and/or perpetrators, and (3) had at least one Canada-affiliated author. The 150 included articles contribute significantly to the IPV literature but have shortcomings. Most articles inadequately reported gender identity and sexual orientation; among articles reporting, most only included cisgender heterosexual participants. Some articles conflated sex and gender, used outdated terminology, or used language that invisibilized GSM people. While research focused on heterosexual women (and men) is needed, exclusionary research practices can further marginalize GSM people. Given such research practices can impede the development of equity-oriented policies for these groups, we provide recommendations for researchers to improve inclusion and reporting. Gatekeepers such as ethics review board members and funders should strive to uphold these standards, including developing their own research and reporting policies.

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 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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.608
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.237
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSexuality Research and Social PolicySame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207