Intergenerational continuity/discontinuity of child maltreatment among low-income mother–child dyads: The roles of childhood maltreatment characteristics, maternal psychological functioning, and family ecology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite evidence of some intergenerational continuity of maltreatment, a notable proportion of parents maltreated in childhood do not perpetuate the cycle of maltreatment. The aim of this study was to identify factors that would distinguish mother-child dyads where intergenerational continuity was present from dyads characterized by intergenerational discontinuity. The sample included 193 children and their mothers, drawn from two populations: 74 maltreated children recruited through Child Protection Services and 119 nonmaltreated children recruited among low-income families. Factors investigated included maternal childhood maltreatment, psychological functioning, and family ecology. Compared to maltreated mothers who broke the cycle of maltreatment, those who perpetuated the cycle were more likely to have experienced childhood physical neglect and multitype maltreatment, and to experience sociodemographic risk, intimate partner violence, and lack of family support. Compared to nonmaltreated mothers who maintained a nonmaltreating child-rearing environment: (a) maltreated mothers who broke the cycle were more likely to experience residential instability and lack of family support, and (b) nonmaltreated mothers whose child was maltreated were more likely to experience sociodemographic risk and lack of family support. Maternal psychological functioning did not discriminate maltreatment groups. Lending empirical support to a diathesis-stress model of poor parenting, these findings suggest that family-ecology related stress, but not maternal psychological difficulties, may create additional burden that will precipitate the risk of maltreatment intergenerational continuity.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".