MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136445672 · doi:10.33921/hbdy2203

Childhood emotional abuse and posttraumatic stress symptoms in women: the mediating role of mindfulness

2017· article· en· W3136445672 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stéphanie Laforte, Caroline Dugal, Claude Bélanger, Natacha Godbout

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interpersonal Relations Intergroup Relations and Identity · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMindfulnessPsychologyPsychological abuseClinical psychologyInterpersonal communicationChildhood abuseChild abuseTraumatic stressInterpersonal relationshipPoison controlInjury preventionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

More than one-third of adults report having experienced emotional abuse in childhood, which is one of the most common interpersonal traumas. Although survivors of interpersonal trauma are at risk of developing post-traumatic stress symptoms, few studies have specifically examined the links between childhood emotional abuse and symptoms of post-traumatic stress in adulthood. Recent studies highlight the role of mindfulness as a key variable in understanding how interpersonal traumas can be associated with long-term post-traumatic stress symptoms (Godbout, Dion, & Bigras, 2016). The purpose of this study is to examine the mediating role of mindfulness in the relationship between emotional abuse in childhood and post- traumatic stress symptoms. The sample consisted of 354 women from the community who responded to self -reported online questionnaires. The results of multiple regression analyses show that the relationship between emotional abuse in childhood and symptoms of post-traumatic stress is explained by a decrease in mindfulness capacities. Overall, the results highlight the role of mindfulness as a mechanism partially explaining the impacts of interpersonal traumas in childhood.

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)0.001
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 score0.304
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interpersonal Relations Intergroup Relations and IdentitySame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207