Are childhood maltreatment narratives incoherent? A different story
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There is ongoing debate on whether adults' narratives of trauma memories are similarly or less coherent than those of non‐trauma memories. For child maltreatment, relevant studies have focused on child/adolescent narratives rather than adult narratives of sexual abuse and found that these narratives were less coherent than non‐abuse narratives. This study examined and compared the coherence level of maltreatment versus positive event narratives in 204 adults (Mage = 25.52, SD = 8.50, 77.9% identified as female, and 66.7% identified as Caucasian). Results showed that adults' narratives of their child maltreatment were similarly or more coherent than that of non‐trauma, positive events (Cohen's d = .16–.50). The length of narratives was related to coherence level. This study added to the literature by contrasting the coherence level of child maltreatment versus non‐trauma narratives in adults, an area of limited study. Results suggested a resilient sample who can narrate their maltreatment events coherently.
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 | 0.004 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".