A multilevel analysis of risk and protective factors for Canadian youth injured or killed by interpersonal violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The study's purpose was to determine individual-level and neighbourhood-level risk and protective factors for severe intentional injury among youth. METHODS: We conducted a multilevel case-control study using registry data to determine individual-level and neighbourhood-level social determinants associated with severe violent injury/homicide among youth from Winnipeg, Manitoba. RESULTS: The study includes 13 206 youth, aged 12-24 years (1222 cases, 11 984 controls). Individual-level risk predictors of being a victim of violence were male sex (OR 5.72 (95% CI 4.77 to 6.86)) and First Nations (OR 2.76 (95% CI 2.32 to 3.29)). Education was inversely associated with victimisation for individuals under (OR 0.36 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.51)) and over (OR 0.58 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.69)) 18 years. Ever having been in protective care (OR 1.66 (95% CI 1.39 to 1.99)), receiving income assistance from the government (OR 1.26 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.51)) or ever having criminal charges (OR 4.76 (95% CI 4.08 to 5.56)) were also significant predictors of being a victim of violence. Neighbourhood-level risk factors for victimisation included low socioeconomic status (OR 1.14 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.25)) and high levels of assault (OR 1.07 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.10)). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates a complex web of risk and protective factors among youth injured by violence. It underscores the ongoing, injurious effects of historical trauma experienced by many Canadian First Nations people. Strong victim-perpetrator overlap suggests that intersectoral policies are needed to address these issues. Our findings highlight the need to improve education and family supports.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".