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

Physical Dating Aggression in Adolescence

2011· article· en· W2129362740 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.457
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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