Women in midlife and older experiencing intimate partner violence: Are battered women's shelters in Atlantic Canada ready to answer the call?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers have debated whether women in later life experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV) are victims of IPV or elder abuse (EA). This study operates under the notion that women experiencing abuse by their partners are victims of IPV regardless of age. However, it is largely unknown if services for victims of IPV are appropriate across the lifespan. The current study addressed this gap by investigating how stage 1 transition homes in Atlantic Canada are meeting the needs of women in midlife and older. This two-phased study included an online survey with 17 shelter directors and telephone interviews with 8 shelter directors. Results indicated that between 2007-2008, women in midlife and older comprised 28% of those who used stage 1 transition houses. Although survey results suggested that stage 1 transition homes meet the needs of women across the lifespan, the interviews revealed a different picture. Results of the interviews unfolded into three distinct phases within the lives of women in midlife and older: (1) life at home and in the community, (2) living in the shelter, and (3) starting a new life. Directors shared that transition homes often fall short in meeting the needs of this age group in such areas as shelter policies, accessibility, privacy, support and outreach. Transition homes offer safety and security for women across the lifespan, but they do not meet the particular needs of women in midlife and older. However, results of this study indicate that women in midlife and older who experience IPV require education and support surrounding power and control dynamics, which a transition house provides. As such, recommendations for research, policy and practice are described in order to ensure that stage 1 transition homes offer a welcoming, suitable, and supportive environment for women in later life.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".