Teens’ self-efficacy to deal with dating violence as victim, perpetrator or bystander
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple studies have demonstrated that adolescent dating violence is highly prevalent and associated with internalizing and externalizing problems. A number of prevention initiatives are being implemented in North-American high schools. Such initiatives do not only aim to raise awareness among potential victims and offenders but also among peer bystanders. Since teenagers mainly reach out to their peers when experiencing adversity, it is important to address adolescents' efficiency to deal with witnessing dating violence or with friends disclosing dating abuse, in addition to increasing ability to deal with experienced dating violence victimization or perpetration. The aim of this study is to explore adolescents' self-efficacy to deal with dating violence victimization and perpetration in their relationships and those of their peers. A paper-and-pencil questionnaire was completed by 259 14-18 years olds in Quebec, Canada. The data allows building insight into adolescents' confidence to reach out for help or to help others in a situation of dating violence victimization and perpetration. We also considered the impact of gender and dating victimization history. Results suggest that dating violence prevention can build on teens' self-efficacy to deal with dating violence and offer them tools to do so efficiently.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".