MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2552473844 · doi:10.1177/1556264616670769

The Perceived Impact of Trauma-Focused Research on Forensic Psychiatric Patients With Lifetime Victimization Histories

2016· article· en· W2552473844 on OpenAlexaff
Ilvy Goossens, Tonia L. Nicholls, Iris Torchalla, Johann Brink, Corine de Ruiter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesBC Mental Health & Substance Use ServicesUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPsychiatryNeglectClinical psychologyChildhood abuseAdverse Childhood ExperiencesArousalInjury preventionSuicide preventionChild abusePoison controlMedicineMental healthMedical emergencySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the perceived costs, benefits, and motivations for participating in individual trauma-focused interviews among forensic psychiatric patients ( N = 74). The majority of our participants were male, and 100% endorsed adverse childhood experiences (e.g., abuse, neglect) or exposure to potentially traumatic events (e.g., assault). Levels of posttraumatic avoidance (41.9%), reexperiencing (59.5%), and increased arousal (51.3%) were high. In line with previous studies, our findings suggest an overall positive research experience in this sample. In spite of extensive histories of lifetime victimization we did not find an association between victimization, posttraumatic symptomatology, and a negative research experience. Our findings suggest that participation in trauma-focused research is not only possible with, but also potentially beneficial for forensic patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.678
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.431
GPT teacher head0.584
Teacher spread0.153 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Empirical Research on Human Research EthicsSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207