Primary and secondary prevention of child sexual abuse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The high prevalence rates and numerous consequences associated with child sexual abuse makes preventing these offences a societal priority. Prevention strategies have traditionally involved only tertiary interventions, implemented by the criminal justice system after an offence has occurred. More recently, some have argued for a public health approach to preventing child sexual abuse, which includes interventions at the primary and secondary levels. Secondary prevention aims to provide treatment and support to those at-risk of sexually offending before any involvement with the legal system. Increased demand for secondary prevention services and early results from current initiatives demonstrate that at-risk individuals are willing to seek treatment without external pressure from the legal system, and often report numerous treatment-related benefits. These findings support the need for widespread implementation of primary and secondary prevention initiatives. The safety of children requires that society stops merely reacting to sexual offences, and instead begins implementing proactive evidence-based strategies that can prevent even initial incidents of child sexual abuse. This article explores some of the many benefits and barriers associated with primary and secondary prevention, as well as strategies for overcoming these barriers. Recommendations for the development and implementation of prevention initiatives are also included.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".