MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6637745

Judgments of arrest and attitudes toward women's self-defence in situations of intimate partner violence

2012· article· en· W6637745 on OpenAlexaff
Mia Sisic

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican family physician · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDomestic violenceSocial psychologyPsychologyCriminologyIntimate partnerPoison controlPolitical scienceHuman factors and ergonomicsMedical emergencyMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent changes in police enforcement of the policy of mandatory arrest in heterosexual domestic violence situations have resulted in increased rates of women being arrested for assault even though their violence was in self-defence. Fifty-five university students participated in the online pilot study (phase 1) examining the perceptions of stereotypic and non-stereotypic female self-defence. The most (scratching) and least stereotypic (use of a kitchen knife) behaviours were then inserted into scenarios in the main study. Forty-five potential police officers from university and college settings participated online in the main study (phase 2) which examined attitudes and reactions to the victim, perpetrator, perceived appropriate interventions and acceptability of violence of both individuals, when a woman has used violence in self-defence. Though the majority of participants condemned the man's violence and would arrest him, a sizeable proportion of participants did not view the woman's self-defence as acceptable and would not rule out arresting her.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican family physicianSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207