Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractChildhood maltreatment is associated with increased risk of psychopathology, cognitive dysfunction, and impaired relationships, including parenting difficulties. In addition, according to recent studies, the consequences of childhood maltreatment may extend to the next generation. Difficulties with executive function have been linked to both child maltreatment and parenting, but rarely to both simultaneously. The purpose of this review is to propose a model examining executive function as a likely candidate for linking the distal factors of child maltreatment to parenting and subsequent child outcomes and to highlight relevant data for components of the model. This work may suggest new opportunities for targeting executive function as a viable target for interventions in the prevention of the transmission of risk.Keywords: maternal history of childhood maltreatment, executive function, empathy, theory of mind and child outcomesResumeLa maltraitance durant l'enfance est associee a un risque accru de psychopathologie, de dysfonction cognitive et de problemes relationnels, y compris dans le role de parent. De plus, selon des etudes recentes, les consequences de la maltraitance pendant l'enfance peuvent s'etendre a la prochaine generation. Les problemes sur le plan des fonctions executives ont ete associes a la fois aux mauvais traitements pendant l'enfance et aux fonctions parentales, mais rarement aux deux simultanement. Le but de cette revue est de proposer un modele pour examiner les fonctions executives a titre d'element probable liant les facteurs distaux de la maltraitance durant l'enfance au parentage et aux consequences subsequentes sur l'enfant, et de mettre en relief les donnees pertinentes pour les composants du modele. Ce travail pourrait susciter de nouvelles occasions de cibler les fonctions executives comme cible viable d'interventions de prevention de la transmission du risque.Mots-cles : antecedents de maltraitance durant l'enfance de la mere, fonctions executives, empathie, theorie de l'esprit, developpement de l'enfant.Incidence and Prevalence of Child Maltreatment in CanadaChild maltreatment is a significant and costly public health problem. Prevalence data from the 2012 cycle of the Canadian Community Health Survey: Mental Health Supplement indicates that maltreatment is a common experience (Afifi et al., 2014). Overall, 30% of females retrospectively reported experiencing physical or sexual abuse (SA) or exposure to intimate partner violence (IPV) during childhood. Therefore, almost one third of adult women may have experienced some form of maltreatment over the course of their childhood. Prevalence rates for emotional abuse and neglect do not currently exist in Canada. If all maltreatment types were considered, the reported prevalence rates would likely be much greater. Taken together, these figures indicate that family violence is a pervasive problem.Impact of Child MaltreatmentChildhood maltreatment constitutes a major risk factor for impairment across various domains, such as emotional, behavioural, biological, and cognitive dysfunction (Cicchetti & Toth, 2005; Gilbert et al., 2009; Gonzalez, 2013). Adults who have experienced maltreatment in childhood are at an increased risk for exposure to later traumatic life events, developing psychiatric disorders, chronic physical diseases, and their comorbidity (Afifi et al., 2014; Collishaw et al., 2007; Gonzalez et al., 2012). In addition, maltreated children experience difficulties in forming secure attachment relationships with a primary caregiver, which potentiates continued difficulties in interpersonal relationships throughout development (Carlson, Cicchetti, Barnett, & Braunwald, 1989; Stronach et al., 2011). Women exposed to childhood abuse may experience problematic relationships later in life, including increased likelihood of divorce and increased rates of interpersonal aggression (Cannon, Bonomi, Anderson, Rivara, & Thompson, 2010; White & Widom, 2003), including aggression toward their offspring and parenting difficulties (Gonzalez, Jenkins, Steiner, & Fleming, 2012; Pereira, Vickers, Atkinson, Wekerle, & Levitan, 2012; Roberts, O'Connor, Dunn, Golding, & the ALSPAC Study Team, 2004). …
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".