What Has Changed? A Critical Examination of the Duluth Model and Batterer Intervention / Partner Assault Response Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis is motivated by an interest in intimate partner violence within heterosexual partnerships, rooted in an inquiry that posits that historical and present responses to perpetrators of intimate partner violence remain relatively unchanged. This study examines what past and present literature has said about the effectiveness of court-mandated batterer intervention programs (BIP)/partner assault response programs (PAR) in the United States and Canada, with specific focus on the Duluth Model. This study seeks to explore how feminist theories have contributed to, and underpin the development of, partner assault response programs, how effective are BIP/PAR programs at accomplishing their intended goals and objectives, and in what ways have PAR programs developed, or failed to develop, since their conception. Using a thematic analysis of 23 scholarly articles, this study will discuss six over-arching themes, and sub-themes for greater analysis. These themes include the strengths of the Duluth model, critiques of the Duluth model, the modality of the Duluth model, alternative approaches to working with perpetrators of intimate partner violence, notions of victim safety and offender accountability, and what is meant by a coordinated community response to this issue. This thesis is not arguing or advocating for the erasure of partner assault response programs, rather, it seeks to explore how these programs can be re-imagined using a newly defined ‘radical’ feminist thought; one that encompasses intersectional and anti-carceral frameworks and approaches.
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 | 0.040 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| 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".