Prevalence and Correlates of Physical Dating Violence Among North American Indigenous Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the lifetime prevalence of physical dating violence, including victimization, perpetration, and the overlap between the two (mutual violence) among a population sample of 551 reservation/reserve residing Indigenous (i.e., American Indian and Canadian First Nations) adolescents in the upper-Midwest of the United States and Canada. Potential correlates of four dating violence profiles (i.e., no dating violence, perpetration-only, victimization-only, and mutual violence) relevant to this population also were considered. The clearest pattern to emerge from multinomial logistic regression analyses suggested that adolescents who engage in problem behaviors, exhibit high levels of anger, and perceive high levels of discrimination have increased odds of lifetime mutual dating violence relative to those reporting no dating violence. Furthermore, gender comparisons indicated that females were more likely to report being perpetrators only, while males were more likely to report being victims only. Considerations of dating violence profiles and culturally-relevant prevention strategies 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".