MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026049321 · doi:10.1037/0021-843x.113.3.406

Predicting Abuse in Adolescent Dating Relationships Over 1 Year: The Role of Child Maltreatment and Trauma.

2004· article· en· W2026049321 on OpenAlexaff
David A. Wolfe, Christine Wekerle, Katreena Scott, Anna‐Lee Straatman, Carolyn Grasley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Abnormal Psychology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyEmpathyDating violenceInjury preventionPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsSuicide preventionChild abuseClinical psychologyOccupational safety and healthDevelopmental psychologyDomestic violencePsychiatryMedical emergencyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three mediators of the relationship between childhood maltreatment and dating violence perpetration during midadolescence (i.e., trauma-related symptoms, attitudes justifying dating violence, and empathy and self-efficacy in dating relationships) were tested over 1 year with a sample of students from 10 high schools (N = 1,317). Trauma-related symptoms had a significant cross-time effect on predicting incidents of dating violence for both boys and girls. Attitudes and empathy and self-efficacy did not predict dating violence over time, although they were correlated with such behavior at both time points. Child maltreatment is a distal risk factor for adolescent dating violence, and trauma-related symptoms act as a significant mediator of this relationship. The importance of longitudinal methodology that separates correlates from predictors is discussed.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations255
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Abnormal PsychologySame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207