MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417361977 · doi:10.1708/4617.46258

Intimate partner violence and witnessing domestic violence: a comparison of Italian and international evidence

2025· article· en· W4417361977 on OpenAlexaff
Jacopo Santambrogio, Tiziana Rosaria Fraterrigo, Giuseppina Muratore, Alice Del Corno, Emma Francia, Jessica Maissen, Ester di Giacomo, Fabrizia Colmegna, Elena Andreini, Sergio Terrevazzi, Antonio Amatulli, Michele Sofia, Antonino Zagari, Carlo Tersalvi, Emma Howarth, Massimo Clerici

Bibliographic record

VenueRivista di psichiatria · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycINFODomestic violencePoison controlMEDLINEMental healthSuicide preventionEpidemiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this review is to examine the recent literature on intimate partner violence (IPV) and witnessing domestic violence (WDV) with a view to providing definitions, prevalence data for Italy and other countries, and for special populations (such as patients with severe mental illness), investigations into risk factors (alcohol, substances, child abuse) and the consequences for general and mental health. In addition to a free search with Google, Medline was interrogated, using PubMed and PsycInfo for both topics. A total of 757 publications were extracted from PubMed and 338 from PsycInfo for IPV and mental disorders, while 334 publications were found in PubMed and 205 in PsycInfo for WDV; updated epidemiological data was obtained from Italian websites (e.g. ISTAT, Office for National Statistics). We concluded that given the increasing incidence of domestic violence, health and academic institutions should frame the phenomenon in epidemiological and clinical terms, providing updated research data to the stakeholders in order to improve treatment and prevention practices.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.669

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.363 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRivista di psichiatriaSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207