A PROSPECTIVE EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHILDHOOD NEGLECT AND JUVENILE DELINQUENCY IN THE CAMBRIDGE STUDY IN DELINQUENT DEVELOPMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The relationship between childhood neglect and later life outcomes is an understudied topic. This study employs data from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development, a longitudinal follow-up of 411 working-class males in London, to examine (a) the profiles of the boys who were neglected in childhood and (b) the relationship between childhood neglect and juvenile delinquency, controlling for other risk factors. Findings reveal that boys who were neglected in childhood were characterized by other adverse events in childhood. Childhood neglect predicted both self-reported and official offending in adolescence, although these effects eventually dissipated with the introduction of other measures of childhood risk. The odds ratios are particularly large for official offending, with the odds of juvenile conviction being over four times higher for individuals who were exposed to neglect in childhood when compared to those who were not. Neglect and other adverse childhood characteristics were more predictive of official offending than self-reported offending, suggesting potential stigmatization effects. Implications of these findings as well as priority areas for future research are discussed.</p>
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".