Burn Violence Against Women in Australia: The Tip of the Iceberg From Australian Burn Centers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Violence against women is pervasive. An estimated 25% of Australian women (≥15 years) have experienced intimate partner violence. Recent cases of homicidal burn violence perpetrated against Australian women have shocked the nation. However, little evidence exists about the burden of burn violence against Australian women. This study describes and compares the frequency, sociodemographic profile, injuries, and outcomes of women admitted to Australian burn centers with burns from suspected violence with women with unintentional burns. Data were extracted from the Burns Registry of Australia and New Zealand for women (≥18 years) admitted to Australian burn centers between 2009 and 2022, with burns from suspected violence or unintentional burns. Sociodemographic profiles, injury, and in-hospital outcomes were compared. To further explore group differences, 155 women from each group were propensity score matched (one-to-one basis), with subsequent group comparisons made. Of 6262 women meeting inclusion criteria, few reported burns from suspected violence (2.5% vs 97.5%). Women with burns from suspected violence were younger (median 36 vs 43 years), greater proportions sustained flame burns (38.1% vs 25.3%) involving petrol (80.0% vs 38.0%), their injuries more likely involved their head (42.3% vs 16.4%), and a greater proportion died (4.5% vs 1.5%). Perpetrators were most often intimate partners. Our study contributes to emerging international literature demonstrating the confronting nature and consequences of burn violence against women. Building capacity among burn center teams to identify and respond to suspected burn violence will better protect Australian women and align with national plans to end violence against women.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".