Dating Violence Through the Lens of Adolescent Romantic Relationships
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The articles in the focus section of this issue center on a particular form of relationship violence that occurs during a particularly challenging developmental period: adolescence. Although large-scale surveys have documented the prevalence of abuse in teen dating relationships (i.e. more than 25% of male and female high school students report having experienced some form of physical abuse in a dating relationship; Foshee 1996; OKeefe 1997) it often escapes attention or concern. Presumably the laissez-faire attitude that has long existed toward many of the struggles of adolescence reflects the dismissive way we often treat teens attempts at finding romantic love. Although many of us have overlooked its developmental significance until very recently researchers and practitioners who have an interest in child maltreatment have the least difficulty grasping the importance of dating violence in the transmission of violence and abuse across the life span. Violence and abuse toward an intimate partner is arguably the most common form of violence in society (Wolfe Wekerle & Scott 1997). Broadly defined it encompasses any attempt to control or dominate another person physically sexually or psychologically resulting in harm. However how do violence and abuse develop? Are they so common that they should be considered developmentally normal or are they connected to important individual family and cultural experiences that can be addressed earlier on? These are some of the critical questions raised by these provocative articles which we would like to emphasize in our commentary. (excerpt)
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 it