MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408802778 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-091212

Domestic violence and older women in Latin American countries: a scoping review protocol

2025· review· en· W4408802778 on OpenAlexafffund
Marilyn Macdonald, Patrick A. Palmieri, Karen A. Domínguez-Cancino, Lori E. Weeks, Allyson Gallant, Alexa R. Yakubovich, Erin Langman, Melissa Ignaczak, Arezoo Mojbafan, Ali Hammoud, Paulina Carrasco Salazar

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanDalhousie University
FundersDalhousie UniversityMcMaster University
KeywordsMedicineGrey literatureScopusLatin AmericansGerontologyPsychological interventionPublic healthMEDLINEMental healthData extractionPopulationPoison controlEnvironmental healthPsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Domestic violence (DV) is a major public health problem for women around the world, and more commonly for women in Latin American countries (LACs). DV poses a threat to women's health and can have more severe effects in women at midlife and older (aged 50 and above), including a decline in physical and mental abilities leading to a reduced independence. Low- and middle-income countries, including LACs, are projected to experience the greatest population growth in women at midlife and older worldwide over the next few decades. Current LAC literature about DV in relation to women at midlife and older is predominantly prevalence focused. The objective of this review is to identify what is known about DV among women at midlife and older in LACs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will be conducted in accordance with JBI scoping review methodology. This includes a three-step search strategy: first, a search to identify articles from databases in MEDLINE, Scopus and LILACS; then, a second search using all key words and index terms identified from the articles in step one across select databases; and third, screening the reference lists of included studies and reports for additional studies. All studies which focus on DV in LACs among women at midlife and older will be eligible for inclusion, including those related to definitions, frameworks, cultural norms, risk factors, interventions, evaluations, measurement tools, and health and social consequences. Titles, abstracts and full texts will be assessed by two independent reviewers. A data extraction tool will be used, and findings will be presented in a narrative accompanied by diagrams and tables that address the review questions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for this review. Findings will be disseminated through a range of traditional approaches, including publication in a peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This review has been registered with Open Science Framework https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/SZMF7.

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)0.079
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0790.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.012
Bibliometrics0.0250.018
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0070.007
Research integrity0.0090.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0610.010

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.540
Teacher spread0.448 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicIntimate Partner and Family Violence→French-language works237,207→