MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Relationship of Violence and Trichotillomania

2003· article· en· W2073119067 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Susan Boughn, Julie Jaarsma Holdom

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Scholarship · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyClinical psychologySexual abuseInjury preventionIntimate partnerDomestic violenceSuicide preventionPoison controlPsychiatryMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To examine the relationship between violence and the development of trichotillomania (TTM) in women. DESIGN AND METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of 44 women with trichotillomania from 21 American states and Canada. The participants were asked to describe how they live and cope with TTM. The data were subjected to content analysis and were quantified for presentation. Checks were instituted to establish reliability of the content analysis using the criteria of reproducibility and stability. FINDINGS: Forty of the 44 women (91%) reported some form of trauma or violence occurring during their lives and 38 (86%) reported a history of violence concurrent with the onset of TTM. Events ranged from repetitive and moderate to severe abuse (including sexual assault, rape, and gang rape) by family members, acquaintances, and strangers. CONCLUSIONS: These women with trichotillomania experienced a disproportionate number of traumatic or violent episodes in childhood. In most cases, the onset of TTM was correlated with specific episodes of violence. Of special interest is the possible relationship between family chaos experienced during childhood and the onset of TTM.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Citations40
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing ScholarshipSame topicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersFrench-language works237,207