Sexual behaviour in preschool children in the context of intra‐parental violence and sexual coercion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Very little is understood about the developmental antecedents of sexual behaviour prior to adolescence. AIMS: Our aim was to examine the impact of different forms of intimate partner violence on early childhood sexual development. METHODS: We used data from an ongoing prospective longitudinal cohort study of Canadian families. Intimate partner violence of various kinds was measured using a modified version of the Conflict Tactics Scale. Measures of child sexual development were based on the Child Sexual Behavior Inventory. Both measures relied on parental report. RESULTS: Sexual coercion between parental figures, but not physical violence or emotional aggression, was significantly associated with intrusive sexual behaviours shown by 3- to 5-year-old children. CONCLUSIONS: It may seem unlikely that 3- to 5- year-old children can understand that their parents are in a sexually coercive relationship, but our findings suggest that they are sufficiently aware of such behaviours when they occur that they may start to model their own behaviour on them. Clinicians and social workers may need to be more aware of this possibility. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".