“The abuse of minors you witness or experience”: A qualitative study of former professional ballet school students' characterizations of maltreatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The number of recent media reports of child maltreatment (CM) at international professional ballet schools surpasses the few studies on CM in dance. In general, studies on dance largely focus on psychological maltreatment. There is also little research on student experiences across the entire professional ballet school context, which typically include dance, academic, social life, and healthcare experiences, and for some students, living in residence or a homestay from a young age. OBJECTIVE: To explore how former professional ballet school students characterize and make sense of experiences of CM across the entire school context in dance training, academics, social life, living (e.g., in residence, homestay), and healthcare. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Participants were 15 former professional ballet school students (12 women, three men) aged 18-27 years old across six countries. METHODS: Data from online semi-structured interviews and questionnaires were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Experiences were interpreted in the wider context of participants' former ballet schools. Themes included: 1) psychological maltreatment in and beyond the studio; 2) neglect and devaluation: costs of over-prioritizing ballet; 3) physicalabuse: outdated but still rationalized as instrumental; and 4) sexual abuse in blurred private and public spaces. CONCLUSIONS: Participants used CM vocabulary to describe their own and peers' experiences and emphasized that CM should not be normalized. Sense making about experiences suggested a need for more ballet school community awareness about the multiple potential forms of harm of CM, as well as more research, intervention, and advocacy about CM at ballet schools.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".