MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7029031808

II European Conference on Domestic Violence

2022· other· en· W7029031808 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Repository of the University of Porto (University of Porto) · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersProgramme Grants for Applied ResearchSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaMax Rady College of Medicine, University of ManitobaNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsPsychological interventionAgency (philosophy)Context (archaeology)Coping (psychology)Domestic violencePsychological resilienceSuicide prevention
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Positioning interventions as 'restoring' or 'fixing' children who have experienced DVA to a former state of being, prior to their experiences of DVA (Evans & Lindsay, 2008), may overlook children's agency and how they already demonstrate existing ways of coping (Alexander, Callaghan, Sixsmith, & Fellin, 2016).Many authors suggest that paradoxically children can demonstrate resilience (see Callaghan & Alexander, 2015; Katz, 2015; verlien, 2014; verlien & Hydn, 2009), exceeding assumptions about what consists a 'normal' childhood (Burman, 2016).Thus, consideration should be given to how interventions are presented so that children's agency in their experiences of DVA can be acknowledged.The findings also show that how children are perceived as being impacted by DVA can influence what support they receive, if any.Quiet or withdrawn children may be viewed in less need of being 'fixed' by a service and may not have the same access to services compared to those who exhibit more observable and challenging behaviours.Establishing the motivations of parents seeking services for children is therefore important for ensuring that certain groups of children who have experienced DVA are not excluded from receiving support.When given the opportunity, children are very capable of expressing their perspectives and taking an active role in research, challenging pre-conceived ideas that they are incapable and too vulnerable.Whilst children have the right to protection, they also have the right to make their voices heard in matters that concern them (verlien & Holt, 2017).This has implications on prioritising the voice of the child, particularly within the context of interventions, where children have the right to make their invaluable contributions to the development and improvement of services (Sinclair & Franklin, 2000), whilst being protected from exploitation. Conclusion:How we perceive children in DVA has implications on research and professional practice, and how interventions for children are evidenced.Understanding a range of stakeholders' experiences of interventions and emphasising the voice of the child can provide helpful implications for intervention development and evaluation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0070.006
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Repository of the University of Porto (University of Porto)French-language works237,207