Analyses of Spirituality, Social Support, Community Cohesion, and Resilience of Parental-Intimate Partner Violence Exposed Individuals Using Structural Regression Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Intimate partner violence (IPV) refers to physical, emotional, and sexual harm and/or controlling behaviours by a current or former intimate partner. Children are often present when parental IPV occurs which puts them at a higher risk for many negative immediate and long-term physical, psychological, and social consequences. Despite childhood exposure to IPV, positive outcomes are possible which has led to the study of resilience. Resilience refers to the ability to cope with stress and thrive despite adverse experiences. Previous research has highlighted the importance of social supports (e.g., family, friends, and professional supports like IPV services) for resilience in adults exposed to IPV as children. Despite this, little is known about the roles that community factors and spirituality play in resilience in P-IPV exposed individuals. Objectives: To investigate the role of and relations among individual, interpersonal (i.e., social support, spirituality), community/organizational factors (i.e., community cohesion) using a social-ecological model of resilience for individuals exposed to IPV as children. Understanding the mechanisms that promote resilience in P-IPV exposed children can inform the creation of target driven interventions that may bolster resilience in adulthood for P-IPV exposed children. Methods: The current study examined data from respondents who reported exposure to parental intimate partner violence before the age of 15 years on the 2019 General Social Survey conducted by Statistics Canada. Results: As predicted, there were significant relationships between social support and resilience, and community cohesion and resilience, respectively. However, the overall model examining the relationships between social support, community cohesion, and resilience resulted in poor model fit. Significance: Findings from this study add to our current understanding of resilience in P-IPV exposed individuals by demonstrating that social support and community cohesion both significantly impact resilience.
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 | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".