Safe, Stable, Nurturing Relationships Break the Intergenerational Cycle of Abuse: A Prospective Nationally Representative Cohort of Children in the United Kingdom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify contextual and interpersonal factors that distinguish families in which the intergenerational transmission of maltreatment is maintained from families in which the cycle is broken. METHODS: The sample was composed of 1,116 families in the United Kingdom who participated in the Environmental Risk (E-Risk) Longitudinal Twin Study. We assessed mother's childhood history of maltreatment retrospectively with a validated and reliable interview. Prospective reports of children's physical maltreatment were collected repeatedly up to 12 years. We compared families in which mothers but not children had experienced maltreatment with families in which both mothers and children had experienced maltreatment, and with families without maltreatment, on a range of contextual and interpersonal factors known to affect child development. RESULTS: In multivariate analyses, supportive and trusting relationships with intimate partners, high levels of maternal warmth toward children, and low levels of partner violence between adults distinguished families in which mothers but not children experienced maltreatment from families in which mothers and children experienced maltreatment. Families in which only mothers experienced maltreatment were largely similar to families in which neither generation experienced maltreatment, except that mothers belonging to the former group were more likely to have a lifetime history of depression and low levels of social support. CONCLUSIONS: Safe, stable, nurturing relationships between intimate partners and between mothers and children are associated with breaking the cycle of abuse in families. Additional research is needed to determine whether these factors have a causal role in preventing the transmission of maltreatment from one generation to the next.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".