Adolescents’ internalizing symptoms predict dating violence victimization and perpetration 2 years later
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aim of this longitudinal study was to examine bidirectional associations of adolescents’ internalizing symptoms with dating violence victimization and perpetration. We conducted secondary analyses of the Québec Longitudinal Study of Child Development data (n = 974). Each adolescent completed items from the Conflict Tactics Scale (at ages 15 and 17 years) to assess psychological, physical, and sexual dating violence victimization and perpetration in the past 12 months. Adolescents’ symptoms of depression and general anxiety in the past 12 months were self-reported (at ages 15 and 17 years) using The Mental Health and Social Inadaptation Assessment for Adolescents. There were concurrent associations of adolescents’ internalizing symptoms with dating violence victimization and perpetration. Internalizing symptoms at age 15 years were positively associated with dating violence victimization and perpetration 2 years later in both males and females, even after adjusting for baseline characteristics. However, neither dating violence victimization nor perpetration at age 15 years was associated with internalizing symptoms 2 years later. For males and females, internalizing symptoms put adolescents at risk for future dating violence victimization and perpetration. Interventions that target internalizing symptoms may have the potential to decrease subsequent dating violence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".