MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077338934 · doi:10.1177/0272431612472982

Internalizing and Externalizing Behaviors as Predictors of Sexual Onset in Early Adolescence

2013· article· en· W2077338934 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marie-Aude P. Boislard, Frédéric Dussault, Mara Brendgen, Frank Vitaro

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Early Adolescence · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyContext (archaeology)Sexual abuseAssociation (psychology)Clinical psychologyPoison controlInjury preventionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study had three goals: (a) assessing the predictive association of externalizing and internalizing behaviors during childhood with sexual onset during early adolescence; (b) examining the interactive link of externalizing and internalizing behaviors with early sexual onset; and (c) investigating the moderating effect of gender in this context. A sample of 343 French-Canadian participants (140 girls) was followed annually from kindergarten until age 15. Externalizing and internalizing behaviors during childhood were reported by teachers, whereas early sexual onset was self-reported from age 13 to 15. Controlling for sociofamily risk, pubertal status, social preference and sexual abuse, results showed a significant interactive link between externalizing and internalizing behaviors with early sexual onset, albeit only among boys. Specifically, boys high on externalizing and low on internalizing problems in childhood were at increased risk of early sexual onset in early adolescence, whereas externalizing boys with high levels of internalizing problems were not. Externalizing and internalizing problems did not predict early sexual onset for girls. The developmental and clinical implications of these findings 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 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)0.002
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.900

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations15
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Early AdolescenceSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207