Points of View of Chilean Adolescents about Asking for Help and Suggestions to Prevent Dating Violence Based on an Ecological Systems Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While several programs have been developed to prevent dating violence, few have been evaluated. Likewise, few studies have documented adolescents’ viewpoints on how prevention should be done. The current qualitative study seeks to strategically fill a gap in knowledge regarding the points of view of Chilean adolescents about the strategies that are best suited to prevent this problem and what is relevant content for prevention programs. This paper is part of a broader study on adolescents’ social representations of dating violence. The study’s aim was to explore Chilean adolescents’ points of view about asking for help and their suggestions about how to prevent dating violence. The sample included 48 Chilean adolescents, 26 girls (54.1%) and 22 boys (45.8%) between 14 and 18 years old, recruited from public and private schools, who were interviewed with a focus group method. The study consisted of two phases; the results of the second phase are discussed in this manuscript. The results are useful for the development of an appropriate socio-political response to this social and public health problem. Participants identified friends and parents as more common sources from whom to seek help than teachers and health professionals. The severity of dating violence and ensuing injuries are the main reasons for asking for help. In addition, gender is considered a central prevention issue in a changing Chilean cultural context. According to the ecological systems theory, prevention strategies based on the environment of adolescents at multiple levels (individual, interpersonal, community, and social) and in multiple components have been recommended.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".