Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate how people make judgements about the likelihood of child abuse by stepfathers and biological fathers. One hundred eighty-six university students were asked to indicate whether they believed that: (1) girls who live with stepfathers were at higher, about the same, or lower risk for sexual abuse compared with girls who live with biological fathers; and (2) boys who live with stepfathers were at higher, about the same, or lower risk for physical abuse compared to boys who live with biological fathers. Students were also asked to explain how they arrived at their decisions. The results revealed that less than half of the students believed that the risks of sexual and physical abuse were higher for children who reside with stepfathers compared to children who reside with biological fathers (45.4% and 34.1%, respectively). Among students who believed that children were at higher risk of abuse (sexual and physical) at the hands of stepfathers, the most common explanations included the lack of biological (or blood) ties between the stepfather and the child and/or the lack of an emotional bond (or commitment) between the two. The media also contributed to the belief that girls living with stepfathers were at higher risk for sexual abuse, while the perception of greater conflict or rivalry between stepfathers and stepsons also contributed to the belief that boys living with stepfathers were at higher risk for physical abuse. Among students who believed that the risks of sexual and physical abuse were about the same with stepfathers and biological fathers, the most common explanations offered were that child abuse happens in both kinds of families and that it depends on the personality of the abuser.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".