Comparative Analysis of Intimate Partner Violence Perpetrators According to their Referral Type: Self-Referred, Legally Mandated, and Formally Pressured
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a major public health issue with long-lasting consequences, necessitating effective treatments to disrupt its intergenerational transmission. However, the common one-size-fits-all approach in IPV programs may fail to acknowledge the diversity among perpetrators. This study compared three types of IPV perpetrators entering treatment: self-referred, legally mandated, and formally pressured. Among 1,302 men surveyed, self-referred men were generally older, more educated, and reported more clinical symptoms than those in the other groups. They appeared more ready to change and less influenced by social desirability biases. Legally mandated men reported fewer minor IPV behaviors, but more severe behaviors compared with self-referred men. They seemed to minimize or deny their behavior, failing to acknowledge their problem with violence. Formally pressured men exhibited mixed characteristics. They appeared to be motivated by the fear of losing custody of their children. These findings underscore the need for tailored therapeutic approaches.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".