MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993613376 · doi:10.1080/15379418.2014.954688

Parental Support Provided by Nonoffending Caregivers to Sexually Abused Children: A Comparison Between Mothers and Fathers

2014· article· en· W1993613376 on OpenAlexaff
Mireille Cyr, Martine Hébert, Jean‐Yves Frappier, Marc Tourigny, Pierre McDuff, Marie-Ève Turcotte

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Custody · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial supportPsychologyChild supportSupport groupChild sexual abuseSexual abuseDevelopmental psychologyChild custodyClinical psychologyHuman factors and ergonomicsPsychiatryPoison controlSocial psychologyMedicineMedical emergencyCriminology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parental support provided to child sexual abuse (CSA) victims is a key element in their recovery process. Yet, little is known about the extent and nature of support provided by fathers when they are not identified as the perpetrators. This study compares abuse-specific and nonspecific support provided by 92 mothers and 32 fathers after disclosure and six months later. The assessment of both types of support revealed that only the provision of nonspecific support was predicted by gender. With the exception of social support, all other dimensions increased in the months following disclosure. Implications for child protective agencies include early detection of a small group of parents who may have difficulty offering support to their child, in order to foster the development of optimal support strategies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 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

Citations34
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child CustodySame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207