Who Are These Guys? An Exploration of Patterns of Parenting Problems Among Fathers Who Have Maltreated Their Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the high prevalence of father-perpetrated maltreatment, relatively little empirical attention has been given to fathers who abuse and/or neglect their children. The current study explored the dynamics of harmful father-child interaction that may underlie fathers’ risk for perpetrating child maltreatment. Data derived from structured interviews of 121 maltreating fathers were used to discern differential patterns of abuse-related problems in parenting. Results show that a minimum of half the fathers showed problems in each of the following areas: emotional unavailability, unresponsiveness, and neglect; negative attributions and misattributions to the child (including hostility, denigration and rejection); developmentally inappropriate or inconsistent interactions (including exposure to domestic violence); and failure to recognize or acknowledge the child's individuality and psychological boundary. These interview-rated difficulties were consistent with expected patterns of demographic risk and self-reported psychosocial difficulties. When considered together in a cluster analysis, groups of abusive fathers emerged with low (37.0%), moderate (38.4%), and severe (24.6%) levels of problems across dimensions of harmful parent-child interactions. Results are discussed in terms of assessment and intervention needed to address father-perpetrated maltreatment.
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 | 0.003 | 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".