Assessing exploitation experiences of girls and boys seen at a Child Advocacy Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary aim of this study was to describe the abuse experiences of sexually exploited runaway adolescents seen at a Child Advocacy Center (N=62). We also sought to identify risk behaviors, attributes of resiliency, laboratory results for sexually transmitted infection (STI) screens, and genital injuries from colposcopic exams. We used retrospective mixed-methods with in-depth forensic interviews, together with self-report survey responses, physical exams and chart data. Forensic interviews were analyzed using interpretive description analytical methods along domains of experience and meaning of sexual exploitation events. Univariate descriptive statistics characterized trauma responses and health risks. The first sexual exploitation events for many victims occurred as part of seemingly random encounters with procurers. Older adolescent or adult women recruited some youth working for a pimp. However, half the youth did not report a trafficker involved in setting up their exchange of sex for money, substances, or other types of consideration. 78% scored positive on the UCLA PTSD tool; 57% reported DSM IV criteria for problem substance use; 71% reported cutting behaviors, 75% suicidal ideation, and 50% had attempted suicide. Contrary to common depictions, youth may be solicited relatively quickly as runaways, yet exploitation is not always linked to having a pimp. Avoidant coping does not appear effective, as most patients exhibited significant symptoms of trauma. Awareness of variations in youth's sexual exploitation experiences may help researchers and clinicians understand potential differences in sequelae, design effective treatment plans, and develop community prevention programs.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".