Understanding development and prevention of chronic physical aggression: towards experimental epigenetic studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper was to highlight how developmental psychopathology, epigenetics and prevention experiments are starting to blend together to explain the developmental causes of chronic physical aggression (CPA) and, more importantly, to help prevent CPA and its associated physical, mental and social problems. After defining the keywords (prevention, chronic and physical aggression), a selected review of published studies is used to answer the following four questions: when should we attempt to prevent onset of CPA? What are the risk factors for CPA? Have early childhood interventions been shown to prevent CPA? Can early preventive interventions benefit from epigenetic studies? The last section of this paper gives two examples of experimental prevention designs that integrate present knowledge of CPA development, risk factors, early childhood preventive interventions and epigenetic programming of brain development during pregnancy and early childhood. I conclude that randomized control trials of preventive interventions during pregnancy and early childhood with a specific focus on epigenetic effects are the research design most likely to advance our understanding of the biopsychosocial mechanisms that lead to CPA, and the only research design that can identify effective interventions for preventing the development of CPA.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".