MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2536382255 · doi:10.1177/1524838016673600

Effects of Child Sexual Abuse on the Parenting of Male Survivors

2016· review· en· W2536382255 on OpenAlexaff
Joe Wark, Jo‐Ann Vis

Bibliographic record

VenueTrauma Violence & Abuse · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsLakehead UniversityNorthern Ontario Academic Medicine Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologySexual abuseCycle of violenceConceptualizationPoison controlChild abuseSuicide preventionInjury preventionChild sexual abuseClinical psychologyDomestic violenceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research shows that child sexual abuse (CSA) can have detrimental effects on adult functioning. While much research regarding the effects of CSA on parenting of mothers is available, there is a dearth of information on how CSA impacts fatherhood. This literature review finds that the parenting experiences of male survivors are characterized by self-perceptions as adequate parents, deficient parenting as measured by standardized instruments, conceptualization of parenting as an intergenerational legacy and potential healing experience, fear of becoming an abuser, and physical and emotional distance from their children. These themes are strongly related to social discourses on intergenerational cycle of violence theories. Fatherhood is not exclusively problematic for male survivors and can be a healing experience and a source of strength for some survivors. Based on literature concerning male survivors who are parents, narrative therapy is recommended as a therapeutic model to explore how fathers who are survivors challenge dominant discourses around legacies of family violence, intergenerational parenting deficiencies, and victimization. Restorying fatherhood as a healing opportunity is essential when working with fathers who are male survivors and their families.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations23
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrauma Violence & AbuseSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207