Differences in Abuse and Related Risk and Protective Factors by Runaway Status for Adolescents Seen at a U.S. Child Advocacy Centre.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study examined the abuse prevalence and characteristics, and risk and protective factors, among both runaway and non-runaway adolescents evaluated at a Child Advocacy Center (CAC) in Minnesota, which had implemented a referral program to assess runaways for potential sexual assault or sexual exploitation. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of self-report and chart data for the 489 adolescent girls who were evaluated between 2008 and 2010. Chi-square and t-tests by runaway status compared abuse experiences, trauma responses, health issues, and potential protective assets associated with resilience between runaways and non-runaways. Bivariate logistic regressions explored the relationship of these risk and protective factors to self-harm, suicide attempts, and problem substance use, separately for runaways and non-runaways who had experienced sexual abuse. RESULTS: Runaways were significantly more likely than non-runaways to have experienced severe sexual abuse, to have used alcohol and drugs, and reported problem substance use behavior, higher levels of emotional distress, more sexual partners, and they were more likely to have a sexually transmitted infection (STI). Runaways had lower levels on average of social supports associated with resilience, such as connectedness to school, family or other adults. Yet higher levels of these assets were linked to lower odds of self-harm, suicide attempt and problem substance use for both groups. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: CACs should encourage referrals of runaway adolescents for routine assessment of sexual assault, and incorporate screening for protective factors in addition to trauma responses in their assessments of all adolescents evaluated for possible sexual abuse, to guide interventions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".