MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168195006 · doi:10.1177/1077559505285780

Sexual Revictimization: The Role of Sexual Self-Esteem and Dysfunctional Sexual Behaviors

2006· article· en· W2168195006 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa K. Van Bruggen, Marsha Runtz, Helena Kadlec

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Maltreatment · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDysfunctional familySexual abuseChild sexual abusePsychologyPoison controlChild abuseClinical psychologyInjury preventionVulnerability (computing)Suicide preventionDevelopmental psychologyMedicineMedical emergencyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Disproportionately high rates of sexual revictimization have been noted among former victims of child sexual abuse (CSA), yet researchers have yet to determine the source of this apparent vulnerability to reexperience sexual violence. This study explores this issue by examining sexual self-esteem, sexual concerns, and sexual behaviors among 402 university women. Compared to women without a history of CSA (n = 348), women with a history of CSA (n = 54) had lower sexual self-esteem, poorer sexual adjustment, and were 2 times more likely to have experienced sexual assault since the age of 14 years. Structural equation modeling indicated that the relationship between child abuse (i.e., CSA and child psychological maltreatment) and sexual revictimization was partially mediated by sexual self-esteem, sexual concerns, and high-risk sexual behaviors. This study emphasizes the need for further research on child maltreatment, revictimization, and women's sexual adjustment.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations147
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild MaltreatmentSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207