MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975466209 · doi:10.2298/tem1404043h

Understanding the hesitancy to disclose teen dating violence: Correlates of self-efficacy to deal with teen dating violence

2014· article· en· W1975466209 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Martine Hébert, C Bijsterveld van, Francine Lavoie, Martin Blais, Mireille Guerrier

Bibliographic record

VenueTemida · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDating violencePsychologyPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)WitnessSuicide preventionClinical psychologyPoison controlCriminologyMedicineDomestic violencePsychiatryMedical emergencyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dating violence (DV) is now recognized as an important public health issue. Prevention and intervention programs are being implemented in school contexts. Such initiatives aim to raise awareness among potential victims and offenders as well as among peer bystanders and offer adequate interventions following disclosure. Yet, a major challenge remains as teenagers may not disclose their victimization or may not feel self-efficient to deal with DV if they witness such violence. As such, teen DV remains largely hidden. A representative sample of 8 194 students (age 14-18) in the province of Quebec, Canada was used to explore teenagers' self-efficacy to reach out for help or to help others in a situation of DV victimization and perpetration. Analyses are conducted to identify possible correlates of self-efficacy in terms of socio-demographic variable (sex, age) and a history of child sexual abuse and dating victimization. Implications for prevention and support strategies 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 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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.349
Threshold uncertainty score0.771

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTemidaSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207