“I felt imprisoned”: A qualitative exploration of controlling behaviors in adolescent and emerging adult dating relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: First dating relationships can elicit intense emotions that youth may attempt to alleviate by using control tactics that negatively impact the quality of their relationship and their partner's well-being. Despite the breadth of research on dating violence, studies examining control tactics in youth relationships are limited. The current qualitative study documented control tactics from the perspective of youth who are currently in dating relationships. METHOD: Individual semistructured interviews were conducted with 39 participants aged 15-22 years old to gather information regarding conflict management strategies used in their dating relationships. The participants were recruited from high schools and junior colleges across the province of Quebec, Canada. RESULTS: Direct content analysis revealed three categories of control tactics, including, isolation, domination, and emotional manipulation. These findings highlight the importance of further examining control dynamics in adolescent and emerging adult dating relationships to improve dating violence prevention programs. CONCLUSIONS: Educational programs can help prevent control from escalating to more direct forms of violence by supporting youth in identifying unhealthy relationship dynamics and providing them with tools to either safely end the relationship or communicate their concerns with their partner.
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 | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".