MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2797469599 · doi:10.1177/1524838018767932

Childhood Sexual Violence in Indonesia: A Systematic Review

2018· review· en· W2797469599 on OpenAlexaff
Lauren Rumble, Ryan Fajar Febrianto, Melania Niken Larasati, Carolyn Hamilton, Ben Mathews, Michael P. Dunne

Bibliographic record

VenueTrauma Violence & Abuse · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsAction Canada for Sexual Health and Rights
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual violenceStrengths and weaknessesGeneralizability theorySexual abusePoison controlSystematic reviewMedicineInjury preventionPsychologyEnvironmental healthCriminologyDevelopmental psychologyMEDLINEPolitical scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been relatively little research into the prevalence of childhood sexual violence (CSV) as well as the risk and protective factors for CSV in low- and middle-income countries including Indonesia. Systematic searches conducted in English and Bahasa Indonesia in this review identified 594 records published between 2006 and 2016 in peer-reviewed journals and other literature including 299 Indonesian records. Fifteen studies, including nine prevalence studies, met the quality appraisal criteria developed for this review. The review found that CSV research is scarce: Only one study included nationally representative prevalence estimates. Varying definitions for CSV, survey methods, and sample characteristics limited the generalizability of the data. The available evidence points to significant risk of sexual violence affecting both girls and boys across many geographical and institutional settings. Married adolescent girls are vulnerable to sexual violence by partners in their homes. Children in schools are vulnerable to CSV by peers and adults. Victims seldom disclose incidents and rarely seek support. In addition, early childhood experiences of trauma were strongly associated with later perpetration of sexual violence and revictimization. Limited information is available about protective factors. This review synthesizes evidence about what is currently known about CSV in Indonesia and identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the existing research. A more robust evidence base regarding CSV is required to better inform policy and justify investment into 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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0110.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations88
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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