MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293399660 · doi:10.1177/21676968221119729

Examining the Relationships Between Adverse Childhood Experiences, Student Generational Status, and Exam Performance in Emerging Adult Undergraduates

2022· article· en· W4293399660 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah K. York, Louise Chim, Jeremy Viczko, Patrick Nicoll, Cheiyenne Fontanilla, Andrea Kasian, Colette M. Smart

Bibliographic record

VenueEmerging Adulthood · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological resilienceAdverse Childhood ExperiencesPsychologyScale (ratio)Developmental psychologyClinical psychologyResilience (materials science)Mental healthSocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: We aimed to understand how adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) correlated with undergraduates’ examination performance, while looking at the contributions of attentional control and resilience. Methods: Students aged 18–25 years were recruited from first-year Psychology classes (Total N = 488). ACE scores, as well as the Attention Control Scale and the Brief Resilience Scale, were measured in conjunction with students’ first exam score of the semester. Results: Participants with no (0) and high (4+) ACE burden had higher resilience compared to those with moderate (1–3) ACE burden. Higher examination scores related to greater levels of attentional control, but no relationship was found with resilience or ACEs. Conclusions: Contrary to predictions, ACEs were related to resilience but in a non-linear fashion. Students with highest ACE burden require further study to understand factors contributing to their academic and personal resilience.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmerging AdulthoodSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207