MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000483245 · doi:10.1177/1077559500005003002

Prediction of Sexual, Emotional, and Physical Maltreatment and Mental Health Outcomes in a Longitudinal Cohort of 290 Adolescent Women

2000· article· en· W2000483245 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christopher Bagley, Kanka Mallick

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Maltreatment · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual abusePsychological abusePhysical abusePsychologyMental healthClinical psychologyChild abusePoison controlLongitudinal studyCoping (psychology)CohortInjury preventionPsychiatryMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A longitudinal study of 290 Canadian females measured factors at ages 3, 6, 9, and 13 that predicted emotional, physical, and sexual maltreatment occurring up to the age of 16. Significant factors predicting maltreatment were early neurological status and difficult temperament, cognitive status, maternal stress, chronic poverty, negative family climate, weak bonding, and family disruption. There was complex interplay between these factors in predicting both maltreatment status and poor mental health at age 17. Sexual abuse retained a significant link with emotional (but not conduct) problems when effects of physical and emotional abuse were controlled for. Adolescents with a combination of prolonged rather than brief sexual abuse combined with other types of abuse, with a background of family disruption and poverty, and child's impaired coping skills (reflecting poorer cognitive capacity and central nervous system problems) were most likely to have markedly impaired emotional functioning at age 17.

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)0.002
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 score0.769
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations88
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild MaltreatmentSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207