MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049140572 · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.13.2.277

Development and validation of the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory.

2001· article· en· W2049140572 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.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Assessment · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDating violenceConfirmatory factor analysisExploratory factor analysisDevelopmental psychologyPsychometricsTest validityPoison controlClinical psychologyHuman factors and ergonomicsStructural equation modelingDomestic violenceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Four studies examined the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI), a measure of abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners. Exploratory factor analysis was used to refine items based on high school participants with dating experience (N = 393; 49% female). Confirmatory factor analysis was used to derive and cross-validate the factor structure with participants from 10 high schools (N = 1,019, 55% female; ages 14-16). The model structure fit for all grades and both sexes, with physical abuse, verbal abuse, and threatening behavior most representative of the underlying "abuse" factor. In Studies 3 and 4, the second-order abuse factor showed acceptable test-retest reliability, partner agreement, and correlation (significant for males only) between observer ratings of dating partners' interactions and youths' CADRI scores. Results support the CADRI as a measure of abusive behavior in adolescent dating relationships.

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 score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.216
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.224 · 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