MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385623904 · doi:10.1111/cfs.13069

‘If my parents find out, I will not see my phone anymore’: Who do children choose to disclose online sexual solicitation to?

2023· article· en· W4385623904 on OpenAlexaff
Netanel Gemara, Faye Mishna, Carmit Katz

Bibliographic record

VenueChild & Family Social Work · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersHaruv Institute
KeywordsPsychologyChild sexual abuseThematic analysisHuman sexualityPhoneSexual abuseNarrativePerceptionDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyQualitative researchClinical psychologySuicide preventionPoison controlMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Child online sexual solicitation has become a significant form of child sexual abuse. Disclosure of online sexual solicitation is a multifaceted and complex process. The role of the disclosure recipient is crucial in the disclosure process, with respect to the initiation of the disclosure, how much children disclose, recantations and the children's well‐being. The current study aimed to explore children's experiences, perceptions, challenges and obstacles regarding disclosing online sexual solicitation as revealed in their forensic interviews. The sample, obtained from the Service of Forensic Interviews with Children in Israel, included 32 Israeli children who were sexually solicited online and participated in forensic interviews. A thematic qualitative methodology was used to analyse the children's narratives. The findings demonstrated that children tend to disclose online sexual solicitation to their peers and not to their parents. The children provided three main reasons for this tendency: sexuality, technology and the recipient's response. The current study's findings highlight the important role of peers in the disclosure process of online sexual solicitation. Moreover, the findings reveal children's difficulties disclosing online sexual solicitation to their parents. Practical implications of children's online sexual solicitation disclosure, future recommendations and study limitations are discussed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.339
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations15
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild & Family Social WorkSame topicSexual Assault and Victimization StudiesFrench-language works237,207