MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018826612 · doi:10.1080/01650250444000243

Risk factor models for adolescent verbal and physical aggression toward mothers

2004· article· en· W2018826612 on OpenAlexaffabout
Linda S. Pagani, Richard E. Tremblay, Daniel S. Nagin, Mark Zoccolillo, Frank Vitaro, Pierre McDuff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Behavioral Development · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAggressionPsychologyDevelopmental psychologySocioeconomic statusPoison controlLongitudinal studyInjury preventionOddsPunishment (psychology)Human factors and ergonomicsVerbal abuseDemographyPopulationMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contributing to the family violence and conflict literature, we examine prospective and concurrent risk factors associated with verbal and physical aggression toward mothers by 15/16 year-old adolescent sons and daughters. Data from the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Kindergarten Children is used to examine the influence of socioeconomic factors, inherent individual and family environment factors, and prospective and concurrent parenting process factors as predictors of adolescent aggression (in the last 6 months). A childhood behavioural pattern characterised by physical aggression generated the highest risk of adolescent-directed verbal and physical aggression toward mothers. Aggressive parental punishment in the last 6 months significantly predicted aggression toward mothers. A childhood life-course of violence seems to culminate in verbal and physical aggression toward mothers during adolescence. Given this building-up process from childhood, harsh parental punishment of the adolescent seems to only increase the odds of adolescent aggression. No sex differences were observed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations228
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Behavioral DevelopmentSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207