MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411398301 · doi:10.18280/ijsse.150409

Prediction of Violence Against Women Using Ensemble Learning Models: A Comparative Study of LightGBM, XGBoost, and Others

2025· article· en· W4411398301 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Safety and Security Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComputational and Text Analysis Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBinus University
KeywordsEnsemble learningComputer sciencePoison controlArtificial intelligenceMachine learningPsychologyMedical emergencyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Violence against women and the possibility of its occurrence among children is a very serious issue that negatively impacts the physical, psychological, and emotional aspects of the victims and those around them.Various efforts have been made to reduce violence against women and children; however, in reality, such violence still occurs significantly in many countries due to emotions and turmoil within human relationships.It is necessary to propose prediction methods so that violence can be reduced through early observation and intervention against violence experienced by women.machine learning, as one of the Artificial Intelligence algorithms, offers a solution to identify and predict the risk of violence.This study aims to explore the use of several Ensemble Learning models, such as LightGBM, XGBoost, CatBoost, and AutoEnsemble, which are expected to improve prediction accuracy and stability.This study uses a dataset consisting of 348 samples with 5 selected features that represent indicators relevant to the risk of violence against women.The test results show that XGBoost and CatBoost achieved the highest accuracy, approximately 73%, with a precision of 76%, recall of 65%, and F1-Score of 70%.TabNet demonstrated similar performance with an accuracy of 73%, but with a higher recall of 70%.Meanwhile, LightGBM showed slightly lower performance with 68% accuracy and an F1-Score of 64%.AutoEnsemble produced stable results with 73% accuracy, 76% precision, 65% recall, and 70% F1-Score.However, the practical limitation of this study lies in the relatively small dataset size, which may affect the model's generalization ability when applied to larger or more diverse features.The findings of this study indicate that Ensemble Learning models can provide accurate and effective results in predicting violence against women.It is hoped that this research can contribute to more proactive and accurate efforts to prevent violence against women in the future.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.283 · 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