Mothers' physical abusiveness in a context of violence: Effects on the mother–child relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of mothers' physical abusiveness on the quality of the mother-child relationship, and note how it further varied by their exposure to interparental violence (IPV). The sample consisted of 232 clinic-referred children, aged 2 to 7 years, and their biological mothers. Slightly more than a quarter of the children (N = 63, 27.2%) had been physically abused by their mothers; approximately half of these children also had a history of exposure to IPV (N = 34, 54%). Investigating effects of physical abuse in the context of IPV history on mothers' and children's emotional availability, we found that physically abused children with no IPV exposure appeared less optimally emotionally available than physically abused children with an IPV exposure. However, subsequent analyses showed that although dyads with dual-violence exposure showed emotional availability levels similar those of nonabusive dyads, they were more overresponsive and overinvolving, a kind of caregiving controllingness charasteric of children with disorganized attachment styles. These findings lend some support to the notion that the effects of abuse on the parent-child relationship are influenced by the context of family violence, although the effects appear to be complex.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".