MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331630652 · doi:10.1080/10538712.2015.1042564

“As Time Went On, I Just Forgot About It”: Thematic Analysis of Spontaneous Disclosures of Recovered Memories of Childhood Sexual Abuse

2016· article· en· W2331630652 on OpenAlexaffabout
Heather B. MacIntosh, Kara Fletcher, Delphine Collin‐Vézina

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Sexual Abuse · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicIdentity, Memory, and Therapy
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisDenialForgettingPsychologyChild sexual abuseSexual abuseDevelopmental psychologyRecallClinical psychologyQualitative researchPoison controlSuicide preventionMedicinePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was a thematic analysis of transcripts of interviews of child sexual abuse survivors discussing their experiences of recovered memories. This study included 27 English-speaking participants from 3 major Canadian cities: Montreal, Toronto, and Ottawa. Seven participants identified as male and 20 as female. Participants ranged in age from 31 to 69 with a mean age of 47. The educational background of participants ranged from 9th grade to doctoral levels. Out of the sample of 27, 21 participants reported some period of amnesia for their CSA experiences. Three primary global themes emerged in the transcripts of participants describing adult emergent recovered memories: flashbacks, triggers, and denial. Three global themes emerged in the transcripts of participants describing partially discontinuous memories: dreams/nightmares as the "how" of memory recovery, triggers, and active processes of forgetting.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.010
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child Sexual AbuseSame topicIdentity, Memory, and TherapyFrench-language works237,207