MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Adolescent Victims and Witnesses

2023· book-chapter· en· W4389887167 on OpenAlexaff
Joshua Wyman, Rachel E. Dianiska, Hayden Henderson, Lindsay C. Malloy

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocioemotional selectivity theorySuggestibilityPsychologyVulnerability (computing)CognitionDevelopmental psychologyWarrantSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Adolescence is a developmental window characterized by growth, change, and vulnerability in multiple domains. Several developmental characteristics of adolescence, both cognitive and socioemotional in nature, increase the likelihood adolescents will come into contact with the legal system as victims and witnesses and also shape the statements that adolescents provide in legal contexts. This chapter describes how several facets of adolescents’ cognitive (e.g., executive functioning) and socioemotional (e.g., susceptibility to peer influence) development influence their disclosures, memory, and suggestibility. It reviews the current state of knowledge concerning what is known about adolescents’ willingness to share their legally relevant experiences with others (i.e., issues related disclosure) and their ability to do so (i.e., issues related to memory and suggestibility). The chapter closes by discussing recommendations for policy and practice alongside novel or emerging issues regarding adolescents’ involvement in the legal system as victims and witnesses that warrant additional scientific inquiry.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooks→Same topicChild Abuse and Trauma→French-language works237,207→