MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054548334 · doi:10.1177/1077559501006001004

Child Sexual Behavior Inventory: Normative, Psychiatric, and Sexual Abuse Comparisons

2001· article· en· W2054548334 on OpenAlexaff
William N. Friedrich, Jennifer Fisher, Carrie Anne Dittner, Robert G. Acton, Lucy Berliner, Judy Butler, Linda Damon, W. Hobart Davies, Alison Gray, John Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Maltreatment · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalAlberta Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChild Behavior ChecklistNormativePsychologyChild sexual abuseClinical psychologySexual abusePsychiatryPoison controlChild abuseSexual behaviorInjury preventionSuicide preventionDevelopmental psychologyMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A normative sample of 1,114 children was contrasted with a sample of 620 sexually abused children and 577 psychiatric outpatients on the Child Sexual Behavior Inventory (CSBI), a 38-item behavior checklist assessing sexual behavior in children 2 to 12 years old. The CSBI total score and each individual item differed significantly between the three groups after controlling for age, sex, maternal education, and family income. Sexually abused children exhibited a greater frequency of sexual behaviors than either the normative or psychiatric outpatient samples. Test-retest reliability and interitem correlation were satisfactory. Sexual behavior problems were related to other generic behavior problems. This contributed to the reduced discrimination between psychiatric outpatients and sexually abused children when compared to the normative/sexually abused discrimination.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations264
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild MaltreatmentSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207