MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100664860 · doi:10.1080/10538712.2013.841790

Listen to the Children: Kids’ Impressions of Who Do You Tell<sup>TM</sup>

2014· article· en· W2100664860 on OpenAlex
Leslie M. Tutty

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

VenueJournal of Child Sexual Abuse · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus groupSexual abusePsychologyChild sexual abuseIntervention (counseling)Child abuseQualitative researchDevelopmental psychologySuicide preventionClinical psychologyPoison controlMedical educationMedicinePsychiatrySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

School-based programs have been the central strategy to educate children about the serious nature of child sexual abuse in the hope of prevention or early intervention. Virtually all evaluations have been quantitative, seldom allowing children to directly comment on their experiences. This article presents the results of qualitative research with 116 students (51 boys and 65 girls) ranging from age 6 to 12 who had participated in the Who Do You Tell child sexual abuse education program. Ten focus groups were conducted with students in separate grades, from kindergarten through sixth grade, two to three months after program participation. The core themes that emerged from the focus group interviews are presented, as are implications for child sexual abuse prevention programs.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.431
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.266 · 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