MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063429217 · doi:10.1300/j070v10n02_03

Cultural and Religious Influences in Maternal Response to Intrafamilial Child Sexual Abuse: Charting New Territory for Research and Treatment

2002· article· en· W2063429217 on OpenAlexaff
Ramona Alaggia

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Sexual Abuse · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChild sexual abuseEthnic groupPsychologyGrounded theoryLesbianLoyaltySexual abuseChild abuseSocial psychologyService providerPoison controlSuicide preventionDevelopmental psychologyService (business)Qualitative researchMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role of culture when providing services for families in the wake of child sexual abuse disclosure is a charged issue although surprisingly little attention has been given in the research literature to this. This article reports the findings of a grounded theory study exploring facets of maternal response, and aspects of more and less supportive responses, to children who were sexually abused by the mother's intimate partner. Ten mothers, chosen on the basis of theoretical sampling, provided information through in-depth interviews to understand how they responded emotionally and behaviourally to their child's disclosure. As well, three service providers were interviewed as key informants. The research revealed cultural and religious influences as affecting how mothers made meaning of the sexual abuse and the actions they took. Mothers from cultural backgrounds that adhere to rigid patriarchal norms identified themes of intense value conflicts regarding family preservation, loyalty binds between the perpetrating partner and child victim, and anxieties around being alienated from their extended family and ethnic community. They also reported that their cultural belief systems were not well understood by service providers. In parallel, helping professionals identified cultural issues as presenting barriers for engaging with some clients. Practice implications and research directions are 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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.022
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations69
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child Sexual AbuseSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207