Risk factors for dating violence among teenage girls under child protective services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to explore potential risk factors for severe physical victimisation in dating relationships of adolescent girls in the child protective system (CPS). A total of 196 adolescent Canadian girls within the care of the CPS completed questionnaires containing measures relating to dating and family violence, sexual history and socio‐demographic variables. Results showed that the majority of participants had experienced some types of victimisation in their dating relationships, with 53.1 per cent reporting at least one severe physical victimisation experience. Results from bivariate analyses revealed that a history of child sexual abuse and school failure or dropout were not associated with dating victimisation. History of parental physical abuse, living outside the family environment before placement, age of first sexual relationship, number of sexual partners and having been pregnant were related to sustained severe physical dating victimisation. Logistic regression analysis indicates that all factors, save for number of partners and living outside family environment, contributed to the prediction of dating victimisation in multivariate analysis. Having been pregnant increased the odds of sustaining severe physical abuse more than threefold (by 3.60). Implications for intervention and further research 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".