MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3193858429 · doi:10.1177/10497315211034802

Bullying Victimization and STIs: Parental Communication and Parental Sexual Communication as Moderators

2021· article· en· W3193858429 on OpenAlexaff
Jun Sung Hong, Dong Ha Kim, Junior Lloyd Allen, Moses Okumu, Jane Lee, Dexter R. Voisin

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch on Social Work Practice · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionPsychologyAssociation (psychology)Logistic regressionDevelopmental psychologyPoison controlClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Informed by attachment theory, the current study explores whether the association between bullying victimization and STIs acquisition among African American youth is moderated by general parental communication or parental communication about sex. Method: Data were collected from 546 African American adolescents in four neighborhoods in Chicago’s South Side. Univariate analyses, Spearman’s rank-order correlation analyses, and hierarchical logistic regression analyses were conducted. Results: A positive association between bullying victimization and STIs acquisition was found. General parental communication did not moderate the association between bullying victimization and STIs acquisition. However, parental communication about sex did moderate the association between bullying victimization and youth STIs acquisition. Discussion: The study has important implications for developing interventions to address the adverse consequences of bully victimization that emphasize parental communication about sex as a major component.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.345 · 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch on Social Work PracticeSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207