MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129362740 · doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000045

Physical Dating Aggression in Adolescence

2011· article· en· W2129362740 on OpenAlexaffabout
Annalaura Nocentini, Ersilia Menesini, Concetta Pastorelli, Jennifer Connolly, Debra Pepler, Wendy Craig

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Psychologist · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAggressionPsychologyMeasurement invarianceConfirmatory factor analysisScale (ratio)Developmental psychologySocial psychologyDemographyStructural equation modelingGeographyStatisticsCartographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study aims to investigate the latent structure of a Physical Dating Aggression Scale in Italian and Canadian adolescents and to evaluate the measurement invariance across gender and country. Participants involved 1,628 adolescents (704 Italians and 924 Canadians; 800 males and 828 females) aged 14–16 years. A revised version of the CTS Physical Aggression Scale ( Straus, 1979 ) modified to make the items more acceptable to younger teens was used. Results from Single-Group confirmatory factor analysis supported a monodimensional structure as the most parsimonious index of Physical Dating Aggression. Furthermore, Multiple-Group analyses conducted through different tests (across gender in each country separately, across country in each gender separately, and across country on the whole sample) showed a substantial factorial invariance. Results are discussed in relation to age, gender, and cultural issues on Physical Dating Aggression.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score0.661

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations40
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean PsychologistSame topicBullying, Victimization, and AggressionFrench-language works237,207