MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1566875101 · doi:10.1002/car.2370

The Challenge and Complexities of Physical Abuse

2015· article· en· W1566875101 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Abuse Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCriminology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Challenge and Complexities of Physical AbuseAs a practising paediatrician, it is my impression that, in spite of overall increases in the volume of child protection work, we are actually seeing fewer cases of physical abuse, particularly in relation to severe and fatal physical abuse.If that is indeed the case, it is a cause for celebration, as it implies that we are more effectively protecting children from physical abuse, and perhaps that our societies are becoming less tolerant of physical violence to children.Several publications over recent years support this view, but it is not a uniform or consistent finding.Gilbert and colleagues (2012) examined trends in child maltreatment rates in six developed countries, and found a mixed picture, with stable or falling rates of violent child deaths in infants and children in all six countries.In contrast, only Sweden and Manitoba showed decreasing rates of maltreatment-related injury admissions.More detailed analyses of violent deaths in England and Wales showed decreases in both infants and children (Pritchard and Sharples, 2008;Sidebotham et al. 2012).Reporting on crosssectional population surveys in the USA, Zolotor et al. (2011) showed promising downward trends in the use of physical punishment (though not in the use of objects for hitting a child).The fourth US National Incidence Study found decreases in the rates of physical abuse of 23-29 per cent compared to the previous study a decade earlier (Sedlak et al., 2010).A 2009 study in the UK showed that fewer 18-24-year olds reported physical abuse than in a similar study in 1998 (Cawson et al., 2000; NSPCC, 2011).In contrast, researchers in The Netherlands found no change in the rates of physical abuse between 2005and 2010(Euser et al., 2013)).In understanding prevalence rates for maltreatment, the work of the Centre for Child and Family Studies in Leiden is exemplary (Stoltenborgh et al., 2011(Stoltenborgh et al., , 2013a(Stoltenborgh et al., , 2013b)).In this issue of Child Abuse Review, Marije Stoltenborgh and colleagues (2015) from the centre report on a series of meta-analyses that they have undertaken collating data from across the globe on all forms of maltreatment.They found an overall global prevalence of 226/1000 for self-reported physical abuse, and three per 1000 for informant reported.Self-reported prevalence varied by geographical region and between countries.Another paper in this issue looks at the prevalence of maltreatment in Nordic countries, systematically searching the published literature from 1990 (Kloppen et al., 2015).They found self-reported prevalence rates of severe physical violence of between three and nine per cent, and mild physical violence of between 13 and 72 per cent.Of note, studies in Finland and Sweden showed lower rates in more recent studies compared to those in the 1990s.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it