MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413878201 · doi:10.1177/00938548251357789

The Factor Structure of Intimate Partner Violence Risk

2025· article· en· W4413878201 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Anna Pham, Kevin L. Nunes, N. Zoe Hilton, Liam Ennis, Sandy Jung

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminal Justice and Behavior · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsMacEwan UniversityUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of TorontoCarleton University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDomestic violencePoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsSuicide preventionInjury preventionOccupational safety and healthRisk factorMedical emergencyPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To improve our understanding of the latent constructs of intimate partner violence (IPV) risk, we explored the underlying factor structure of combined items from three IPV risk assessment tools and examined whether the factors predict recidivism outcomes. Data were examined for 251 adult men who were charged with violence against their past or current female intimate partners and whose files were referred for a comprehensive threat assessment from 2010 to 2016 in Canada. Results suggested six underlying risk factors, two of which significantly predicted IPV, any violent, and any recidivism outcomes in a 4-year average follow-up with 227 men. However, only one factor ( Antisocial Patterns and Psychosocial Adjustment ) independently predicted IPV and any violent recidivism over time above and beyond other factors. Our findings indicate room to further improve current IPV risk assessment measures and support the call for informative causal theories of IPV recidivism.

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 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score0.742

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminal Justice and BehaviorSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207