Dating Conflict-Resolution Tactics and Exposure to Family Violence: University Students’ Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An increasing prevalence of abusive dynamics in intimate relationships among young people has been reported in recent data. The purposes of this study are to outline the conflict-resolution strategies used in dating relationships, to describe the exposure to violent dynamics in the family of origin, and to analyse the correlation between conflict-resolution tactics in dating and exposure to family violence. This quantitative/cross-sectional study, using self-report instruments (sociodemographic questionnaire; revised conflict tactics scales; children’s natural family environment signalling scale), involved 247 university students (mean age = 21.07; SD = 2.07). The results revealed a high prevalence in the use of abusive conflict-resolution tactics and exposure to family violence. Positive and significant correlations between these two variables were also found. These results raise the possibility of the transgenerational transmission of abusive dynamics and multiple victimisation and signal the need for action (prevention and intervention) on beliefs and expectations that young people have about marital relationships.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".