MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7008054277

BARRIERS TO MALE BATTERER’S HELP-SEEKING BEHAVIOURS: A RETROSPECTIVE CASE ANALYSIS OF DOMESTIC HOMICIDES

2009· article· en· W7008054277 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDomestic violenceHomicidePoison controlSuicide preventionPsychological interventionHuman factors and ergonomicsInjury preventionOccupational safety and health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study was conducted in order to investigate male batterer’s help-seeking\nbehaviours. It was predicted that batterers would be more likely to seek help for more socially acceptable issues (i.e. depression or alcohol abuse) versus issues related to domestic violence. Even when batterers presented socially acceptable issues to those in the helping profession, it was predicted that helpers were not addressing or identifying the underlying issue of violent behaviours. An extensive review of 45 domestic homicide case summaries, provided by the Domestic Violence Death Review Committee of Ontario, were coded and analysed. The results indicated that batterers were more likely to seek specialized professional help for more socially acceptable issues versus issues related to domestic violence. Furthermore, when batterers sought general help from professionals, their violent behaviours were rarely identified and thus very few interventions took place for the underlying issue of abusive behaviours. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.298 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)→Same topicIntimate Partner and Family Violence→French-language works237,207→