MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106563039 · doi:10.7202/004730ar

Incidence de l abus et la négligence envers les enfants : recension des écrits

2002· article· en· W2106563039 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Marc Tourigny, Chantal Lavergne

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminologie · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncidence (geometry)Psychological interventionPsychologyVariety (cybernetics)Inclusion (mineral)Sexual abusePhysical abuseMedicineSocial psychologyPoison controlInjury preventionPsychiatryMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mistreatment of children has become a major social concern. The suffering of children occurs in a variety of forms: sexual, physical or emotional abuse, and negligence. Studies that examine the incidence of child mistreatment have become an indispensable tool in documenting its extent, as well as its diverse forms, the characteristics of its victims and their abusers, and their environments. Such knowledge is essential to forming social policies, organizing services, and developing interventions and clinical practices adapted to the needs of families affected by this problem. The purpose of this article is to update current knowledge with regard to the incidence of child mistreatment. Specifically, it intends to determine rates of specific forms of mistreatment, to examine the evolution of such rates in recent years, and to identify important methodological shortcomings of studies in this area in order to identify challenges that must be met to obtain a reliable measurement of the extent of child mistreatment. Four methods of data collection were used to locate publications presenting rates of incidence: a bibliographical search among major data banks, a review of current literature, research among the web-sites of relevant organizations, and personal contacts with researchers working in this field. Literature was selected according to specific criteria for inclusion; 24 relevant publications were identified, a number of which present incidence rates based on a number of data banks and covering several years. The results demonstrate a significant variation in incidence rates, not only the rates of reported mistreatment (prior to investigation by child protection services) but also the rates of confirmed mistreatment following assessment. Reporting rates varied from 5 to 72 children per 1000 in the community; the child victim rates varied from 2 to 110 children per 1000. More than half of the situations of mistreatment consisted of negligence, followed by physical abuse (about 20 %), sexual abuse (about 10 %) and emotional abuse (about 6 %). An examination of regional rates also demonstrated significant differences. In general, the rates of reported as well as confirmed incidents in the United States were two to three times higher than those in Australia or Quebec, but only minimally higher than rates in Ontario. Rates of negligence and sexual or physical abuse followed the same pattern, while rates of emotional abuse were divergent. Differences among rates may to some extent be explained by regional differences, but methodological differences among studies are also important. Studies based on data from child protection agencies report much lower rates than studies based on data collected from professionals working with abused children in the community. Finally, rates of reported incidents of child mistreatment and rates of confirmed reports have increased significantly during the last twenty years. According to child protection services' data, rates seem to have stabilized since the beginning of the 1990s. According to data provided by community professionals however, the rate of child mistreatment has increased consistently during this period, whatever the form of abuse considered. The discussion of results examines three aspects: first, factors that may explain significant rate variations; second, the stability of rates reported by child protection services compared with the consistent rate increase reported by community professionals; and finally, current methodological shortcomings and means of improving future research.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0180.019
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.384
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.037 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations26
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminologieSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207