An exploratory study of child abuse and spousal abuse allegations in families undergoing custody access assessments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are frequent allegations of spousal andlor child abuse made in high conflict families who are experiencing separation or divorce.These allegations are often shared with evaluators completing court ordered assessments regarding custody access issues.Using custody access reports completed for the Court of Queen's Bench in Winnipeg Manitoba this thesis examined the frequency of parental allegations of child and spousal abuse.A file survey instrument was developed to identify various types of allegations that parents make in the course of an assessment.Results show that spousal and child abuse allegations are common in situations where parents are undergoing court ordered assessments regarding custody and access of their children.Results also show that spousal and child abuse co-occur and that confinnation of this fact is obtained during the custody access process.This lias implications for parents and children who are victims of abuse in high conflict custody disputes and for evaluators who must carefully assess the nature of allegations and make a determination of custody or access.This study also contains important information about the co-occurrence of spousal and child abuse in relation to recommendations of custody and access.The study identifies that joint custody remains the most frequent custody and access arrangement recommended.This has implications for parents and children who are in high conflict situations where there has been a history of physical abuse and must negotiate and cooperate within a joint custody arrangement.This study provides information that can be used to enhance best practice in the field of custody access assessments as well as provide direction for further research in this specialized area.l1 I wish to dedicate this thesis to my parents Mike and Elsie (Savata)
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".