MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999447014 · doi:10.1037/ort0000407

Childhood sexual abuse and attachment insecurity: Associations with child psychological difficulties.

2019· article· en· W2999447014 on OpenAlexaff
Karin Ensink, Jessica L. Borelli, Lina Normandin, Mary Target, Peter Fonagy

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Orthopsychiatry · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsPsychologySexual abuseDevelopmental psychologyChild abuseClinical psychologyPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Childhood sexual abuse (CSA) is considered an important public health concern that can derail the developmental course of children. Given that children rely upon their attachment figures when they experience upsetting events, attachment organization may play a critical role in predicting victims' adaptation to CSA. To date, no studies have delineated the unique and interactive contributions of these two risk factors in the prediction of psychopathology. The aims of this study were to examine attachment in CSA victims and a comparison group and to assess the contributions of each risk factor to child psychological difficulties. Participants included 111 children aged 7-13, of whom 43 were CSA victims. Children completed an attachment interview and reported on their depressive symptoms. Their mothers reported on children's externalizing symptoms, internalizing symptoms, dissociation, and sexualized behavior. Our key findings showed that child victims of CSA were more likely to be classified as having insecure and disorganized attachment. Further, insecure attachment was the primary factor associated with higher self-reported depressive symptoms in all children and that CSA was associated with more parent-reported child externalizing problems, sexualizing problems, and dissociation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.829

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations72
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of OrthopsychiatrySame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207