Bibliographic record
Abstract
Childhood sexual abuse is a serious problem with considerable implications for individual patients and society. Psychological and interpersonal problems are more common among those who have been sexually abused than among those who have not. Any sexual activity with a child where consent is not or cannot be given is sexual abuse.1 It is difficult to determine the incidence and prevalence of childhood sexual abuse accurately; however, in an American telephone survey of adults, 27% of female and 16% of male respondents reported being sexually abused.2 In a similar survey in Ontario, sexual abuse during childhood was reported by 4.3% of male and 12.8% of female respondents.3 Recent analysis suggests that the incidence of childhood sexual abuse might be decreasing.4 Childhood sexual abuse is not often revealed immediately. Even if children reveal the circumstances, abuse might not be reported to authorities. A notable percentage of health care professionals choose not to report cases of suspected abuse of children. This is surprising given the serious implications for the child, the family, other children at risk, and society. Failure to report has been attributed to various factors, most based on individual attitudes. Most people in our society recognize the presence, appreciate the seriousness, and abhor the concept of childhood sexual abuse. Unfortunately, I have often observed people’s inability to translate these thoughts into action when they are personally involved (eg, families in a physician’s practice, friends, or colleagues). A balanced, thoughtful approach is needed when considering sexual abuse. Emotion and personal attitudes have no place in the equation. Any child can suffer sexual abuse—this problem is not limited by culture or socioeconomic status.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.001 |
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.
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".