MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The co‐occurrence of adolescent boys’ and girls’ use of psychologically, physically, and sexually abusive behaviours in their dating relationships

2006· article· en· W2044416999 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Adolescence · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyDating violenceContext (archaeology)Poison controlInjury preventionSuicide preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsSexual abuseSocial environmentDomestic violence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined the co-occurrence of and risk factors for adolescent boys' and girls' self-reported use of psychologically, physically, and sexually abusive behaviours in their dating relationships. The participants were 324 boys and 309 girls in grades 7, 9, or 11 who completed surveys at school. Descriptive analyses showed that 19% of boys and 26% of girls reported having used two or more forms of dating violence. One third of students in grade 7 had already used at least one form of aggressive behaviour in this context. Canonical correlation analyses indicated that boys' and girls' use of multiple forms of dating violence were predicted by their attitudes toward and experiences with violence. After controlling for general abusiveness, boys' use of sexually abusive behaviour and girls' use of psychologically abusive behaviour were linked to specific risk factors that suggest an enactment of social scripts associated with their respective gender roles.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.346
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