MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400218588 · doi:10.1111/jftr.12572

The recognition and the initial reaction to children's signals after experiencing maltreatment during childhood

2024· article· en· W4400218588 on OpenAlexafffund
Annie Bérubé, Jessica Turgeon, Noga Tsur, Anat Talmon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Theory & Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsCentre Jeunesse de QuebecUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAttributionPsychologyPsychological interventionDevelopmental psychologyMeaning (existential)Early childhoodHistory of childhoodChildhood abuseChild abuseSuicide preventionPoison controlSocial psychologyPsychotherapistMedicinePsychiatryMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Maltreatment during childhood has many long‐lasting effects. Victims often become parents who experience parenting difficulties, therefore contributing to the intergenerational cycle of maltreatment. This paper highlights the consequences of severe trauma during childhood on two processes critical for a sensitive response, namely the recognition of and the initial reaction to emotional signals. We argue that most interventions focus on the observed parental response to children's behaviors or on parental interpretation of children's signals, that is, the attribution of meaning or intent to the signal. Interventions should better integrate research indicating that a history of childhood maltreatment could impair the capacity to correctly identify the emotion and the immediate reaction to these signals. By failing to acknowledge these long‐lasting consequences of childhood maltreatment, scholars and practitioners might never achieve true success in intervening with families in the hope of breaking the intergenerational cycle of maltreatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family Theory & ReviewSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207