MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982780698 · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.71.2.279

Dating violence prevention with at-risk youth: A controlled outcome evaluation.

2003· article· en· W1982780698 on OpenAlexaff
David A. Wolfe, Christine Wekerle, Katreena Scott, Anna‐Lee Straatman, Carolyn Grasley, Deborah Reitzel-Jaffe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyIntervention (counseling)DistressClinical psychologyEmotional distressSuicide preventionPoison controlChild abuseInjury preventionDating violenceDevelopmental psychologyDomestic violencePsychiatryMedicineMedical emergencyAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study evaluated a community-based intervention to help at-risk teens develop healthy, nonabusive relationships with dating partners. Participants were 158 14-16-year-olds with histories of child maltreatment who were randomly assigned to a preventive intervention group or a no-treatment control group. They completed measures of abuse and victimization with dating partners, emotional distress, and healthy relationship skills at bimonthly intervals when dating someone. Intervention consisted of education about healthy and abusive relationships, conflict resolution and communication skills, and social action activities. Growth curve analyses showed that intervention was effective in reducing incidents of physical and emotional abuse and symptoms of emotional distress over-time. Findings support involvement of youths in reducing the cycle of violence as they initiate dating in midadolescence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.518
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations399
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Consulting and Clinical PsychologySame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207