Effect of Abuse and Neglect on Academic Performance of children in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Child neglect and abuse is expressed as the failure of parent, guardian, or other caregiver to attend to a child's fundamental demands. Thus, the study sought to examine effect of child abuse and neglect on academic performance in schools in Canada. The target population included 374 teachers and learners. Questionnaires were utilized to gather the information. The research found there is a significant impact of child abuse and neglect on students' academic performance. The results indicated that when child abuse and neglect increase by one unit, the student's academic performance will reduce by 0.3441 units when other factors are held constant. Preventing child abuse and neglect requires addressing risk and protective factors at the individual, relational, community, and societal levels. Child abuse is whereby a parent or any other individual who has a duty for the child protection causes injury, death, emotional harm, or risk of severe damage to a child. Child abuse can include physical abuse, sexual assault, exploitation, and psychological abuse. Psychological abuse is the most typical form of abuse, with physical abuse being the most reported and sexual assault being the least reported. Child abuse and neglect impact learning adversely. The research suggested that parents constantly show their children love and affection and meet their needs. The government should put mechanisms to protect children from any form of abuse. The neglected children need to be helped by the community or government with the basic needs to enhance their survival. It was recommended that public engagement and education campaigns and practical approaches be adopted to reduce corporal punishment. The communities need to be engaged in efforts to address family needs, and families need to be able to access supports and resources where they live, work, and worship. Keywords: Child Abuse, Neglect, Academic Performance, Canada
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".