INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE (IPV) IN INDIGENOUS CANADIAN COMMUNITIES: A CASE STUDY OF THE PIMICIKAMAK CREE NATION IN CROSS LAKE, NORTHERN MANITOBA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on individually conducted in-depth face-to-face interviews, this study examines Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) violence in a First Nations community in Northern Manitoba, Canada. It takes as a point of reference the Pimicikamak Cree Nation of Cross Lake. This study situates IPV within the broader context of societal violence and employs a Structural Violence Theory perspective. Empirical studies have consistently demonstrated that IPV is a serious problem facing Canadian Indigenous families. Women are by far the main victims of this problem. Considering that no studies had been published previously about spousal IPV in the Cross Lake community, this study became, by default, exploratory, with the following three crucial questions: (a) what are the social factors shaping IPV in the community? (b) how does IPV affect the lives of victims/survivors? and (c) how is the community responding to the problem? The main findings of this study are as follow: (a) IPV is a systemic problem in the community; (b) women suffer more serious and repeated IPV than do men; (c) despite community efforts to address IPV, inadequate prevention programs have further compounded the problem; and (d) survivors of IPV demonstrated a high level of resilience in the face of pain and suffering. IPV in Pimicikamak Cross Lake community has been compounded by the intergenerational effects of systemic (structural) poverty and the Indian Residential School experience. The interplay of these factors has harmfully affected individual, family, and community relationships and wellbeing.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".