MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982997260 · doi:10.1111/jmft.12414

A Dyadic Analysis of the Associations Between Cumulative Childhood Trauma and Psychological Intimate Partner Violence: The Mediating Roles of Negative Urgency and Communication Patterns

2019· article· en· W2982997260 on OpenAlexafffund
Caroline Dugal, Claude Bélanger, Audrey Brassard, Natacha Godbout

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marital and Family Therapy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et Culture
KeywordsDomestic violencePsychologyMediationPsychological interventionDevelopmental psychologyIntimate partnerHuman factors and ergonomicsSuicide preventionPoison controlClinical psychologySocial psychologyMedicineMedical emergencyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prior research has suggested associations between cumulative childhood trauma (CCT), negative urgency, communication patterns, and psychological intimate partner violence (P-IPV), but no study has examined these links using a dyadic approach. This study examined the sequential mediation of negative urgency and communication patterns in the link uniting CCT and P-IPV in a sample of 501 heterosexual couples. Results suggest that more CCT events are associated with higher levels of negative urgency, which in turn are associated with a higher tendency to endorse a demand/withdraw and/or demand/demand communication pattern, and to perpetrate P-IPV. Findings support the need to assess CCT, emotional self-control, dyadic and communication patterns, and P-IPV perpetration and victimization in couples seeking help in order to select interventions that will take into account the individual and dyadic nature of P-IPV.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 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

Citations30
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Marital and Family TherapySame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207