Effecting Change in Maltreating Fathers: Critical Principles for Intervention Planning.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although fathers perpetrate a significant proportion of child maltreatment, the intervention needs of abusive and neglectful fathers have not been adequately addressed or researched. This paper argues that well-designed treatment has the potential to benefit men, their children, and their families. However, the treatment needs of maltreating and at-risk fathers are unique, and programs must be designed accordingly. Based on the integration of parenting, child abuse, change promotion, and batterer treatment literatures, five principles to guide intervention with maltreating fathers are advanced: (a) overly controlling behavior, a sense of entitlement, and self-centered attitudes are primary problems of abusive fathers; thus, the development of child-management skills should not be an initial focus of intervention; (b) abusive fathers are seldom initially ready to make changes in their parenting; (c) fathers’ adherence to gender-role stereotypes also contributes to their maltreatment of children; (d) the relationship between abusive fathers and the mothers of their children requires special attention; and (e) because abusive fathers have eroded children's emotional security, the need to rebuild trust will affect the pace of change and potential impact of relapse on the child. These principles are contrasted with the supportive and child-management goals of conventional group parenting programs, and the implications for providing service to fathers are considered.
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 | 0.037 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".