Children living with domestic violence Audrey Mullender Is Professor In Social
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Until very recently social work and other child care agencies in Britain have paid little, if any, attention to the impact of domestic violence on children. Audrey Mullender- a pioneer of research in this field- argues the need for a radical improvement in agencies ' response to domestic violence, based on a general raising of sensitivity and awareness at both worker and agency level. Among the specific areas for development suggested are an emphasis on safety planning with women and children, the need for better links between women's services such as Women's Aid, and child care and child protection agencies, and the promotion of positive and healing work with child survivors of living with abuse. The issue of children living with domestic violence (defined for the purposes of this article as men's abuse of women in intimate relationships) is only now coming to be recognised as a matter of concern in its own right, as distinct from child abuse. The first major text on the subject in this country appeared quite recently (Mullender and Morley, 1994). So new is widespread concern, that it can lead to an unsophisticated child protection response- by agencies who know they are expected to do something but are unsure what. Instead, constructive work is needed with the child and with the mother as the non-abusing parent, in ways designed to help her and the children be safe whilst assisting her in regaining control of their lives. There are also implications for social workers, adopters and foster carers in understanding the reactions of children who have seen violent assaults on their mothers, whether or not the children themselves have been abused. The child-centred responses to the aftermath of living with violence offered by child care agencies in some parts of America and Canada, particularly through
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.005 |
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".