Male Perpetration of Adolescent Dating Violence: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Male violence against females most often occurs within intimate relationships, and when that occurs during youth, it is termed adolescent dating violence (ADV). A scoping review focused on male perpetration of ADV was conducted to synthesize existing evidence and offer insights about what influences male adolescents to perpetrate ADV. The current scoping review explored the findings drawn from 16 research studies conducted in the United States, Spain, South Africa, and Italy, to distil modifiable factors related to male perpetration of ADV. Three themes were extrapolated from the 16 studies: (a) entitlement; (b) adverse childhood experiences (ACE); and (c) ineffective conflict management. Entitlement as a theme was characterized by attitudes and beliefs aligning to violence, hierarchical and marginalizing masculine norms, traditional gender roles, and male superiority, which in various configurations influenced the perpetration of ADV. ACE as a theme highlighted how male adolescents who had experienced, observed, and/or initiated abuse were at increased risk of perpetrating ADV. Male adolescents with ineffective conflict management (theme 3), including alcohol use and/or emotional dysregulation, were also at higher risk of perpetrating ADV. Tailored prevention efforts are often delinked from issues of male entitlement, ACE, and ineffective conflict management; therefore, we make suggestions for trauma-informed care to guide primary care providers (PCPs) in the assessment and management of ADV.
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 | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".