Narratives of women in domestic violence shelters: how they view intimate partner relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a damaging breakdown in relationship and a serious global health issue. How women who have experienced IPV evaluate their relationships and what they describe wanting in relationships has received little attention in IPV literature. The present exploratory qualitative study examined: (1) what women who have experienced IPV want in romantic relationships, (2) the factors they consider as they reflect on staying or leaving a relationship, (3) the ways the intersections of identity can create vulnerability and impact experiences of relationships, and (4) how spending time in shelter impacts women’s thoughts about relationships and hopes for their future. Interviews with eight women were conducted and analyzed using Fraser’s (2004) method which examines personal stories while considering the social context of the narratives. This analysis was informed by post-modern, feminist, post-colonial scholarship. The analysis revealed the impact of dominant narratives of intimate relationships on how women make meaning of their experiences of IPV: that women attempt to align with the dominant narrative about ideal relationships, attempt to align with narratives about leaving the relationship, and attempt to align with the dominant narrative of shelter being predominantly used for immediate refuge from violence. The impact of these dominant narratives, as well as practice implications to promote positive physical, psychological, and social outcomes for marginalized female victims of IPV and further research directions 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".