Relationship between child abuse exposure and reported contact with child protection organizations: Results from the Canadian Community Health Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much of what is known about child abuse in Canada has come from reported cases of child abuse and at-risk samples, which likely represent the most severe cases of child abuse in the country. The objective of the current study is to examine the prevalence of a broad range of child abuse experiences (physical abuse, sexual abuse, and exposure to IPV) and investigate how such experiences and sociodemographic variables are related to contact with child protection organizations in Canada using a representative general population sample. Data were drawn from the 2012 Canadian Community Health Survey: Mental Health collected from the 10 provinces using a multistage stratified cluster design (n=23,395; household response rate=79.8%; aged 18 years and older). Physical abuse only (16.8%) was the most prevalent child abuse experience reported with the exposure to specific combinations of two or more types of child abuse ranging from 0.4% to 3.7%. Only 7.6% of the adult population with a history of child abuse reported having had contact with child protection organizations. Experiencing all three types of child abuse was associated with the greatest odds of contact with child protection organizations (AOR=15.8; 95% CI=10.1 to 24.6). Physical abuse only was associated with one of the lowest odds of contact with child protection organizations. Preventing child abuse is widely acknowledged as an important, but challenging public health goal. Strategies to increase reporting of child abuse may help to protect children and to connect families with necessary services. One obvious priority would be physical abuse.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".