Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative autoethnographic research study examines the long-term relationship impacts of child sexual abuse (CSA) by parent.Using snowball sampling seven resilient women were recruited for this research.From an autoethnographic and feminist perspective the researcher shares her personal story of CSA in solidarity with the seven women participants.Through semi-structured interviews the women contributors gave deep and rich relational personal her/stories about being sexually abused by their fathers.Using a "six-phase" model of thematic analysis, member checking, and qualitative transparency, two over-arching themes, and eight subthemes emerged from the data.Finally, through this research study it was apparent there needs to be more research about the understudied long-term relational impacts of being sexually abused by a parent and the mother's and families role in colluding with the perpetrator.Chapter Four -Findings…..…………………………………………………………….56 Introduction……………………………………..………………………….…...56 Theme #1: Relationship Wounding-The Lack of Trustworthy People….……56Subtheme 1 a: The Betrayal of Daughters by Their Incestuous Fathers……….58Subtheme 1 b: Mothers Collusion in Betraying Their Daughters………………63 Subtheme 1 c: Lack of Trust in Self or Important Others………………………68 Subtheme 1 d: Partners as Untrustworthy………………………………….......72 Summary..………………………………………………………………………77 Theme #2: Relationship Healing---Learning to Trust Self……………………..78 Subtheme 2 a: Remembering and Dissociating…………………………….......79 Subtheme 2 b: Disclosures and Speaking Up for Self………………………….84Subtheme 2 c: Many Losses to Heal From……………………………………..
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".