10.1177/1077801204265017ARTICLEVIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / June 2004Brownridge / VIOLENCE IN COMMON-LAW UNIONS Understanding Women’s Heightened Risk of Violence in Common-Law Unions Revisiting the Selection and Relationship Hypotheses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cohabiting women’s heightened risk of violence is a well-established relationship but one that is not fully understood. Using a recently collected representative sample of 7,396 Canadian women, the results of the present study show that the cohabitation-violence relationship persists. However, over a 6-year period, the prevalence of violence against women in cohabiting unions declined dramatically relative to marital unions. The results of the analyses suggest that the increasing prevalence of cohabitation has reduced the selection bias, in turn causing cohabitors ’ and “marrieds” ’ relationships to become increasingly similar. Nevertheless, the results also suggest that cohabitors remain a select group, and this differential selection is responsible for the persistence of their higher like-lihood of violence. Overall, the results suggest that cohabitation will need to become much more prevalent before parity in rates of violence will be achieved between cohabitors and marrieds in Canada.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.925 | 0.703 |
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".