Gender beliefs and legitimization of dating violence in adolescents
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and aim Knowing the gender beliefs (GB) that legitimize dating violence (DV) it is important for the prevention of this phenomenon. The aim is to evaluate the impact of GB interventions that legitimize DV. Methods Single group quasi-experimental study, with a sample of 148 Portuguese adolescents. A questionnaire was used to collect data, with data processing carried out using SPSS, using descriptive and inferential statistics. Results The interventions included an infographic on gender asymmetries, a video about DV, and posters on the topic and Health Education sessions. The largest group fell into the less conservative GB (40.5%) and the categories of non-violent relationship and considerably violent relationship had the same percentage (38.5%). The rank mean of the gender belief inventory scale before and after the interventions was, respectively, 35.24 and 33.06 points, while the same measurements of the violent youth relations inventory scale were 2.74 and 1.63 points. There were statistically significant differences (Wilcoxon: p = 0.01) between the GB score before and after the interventions, as well as in the violent youth relations (VYR) scale score (Wilcoxon: p = 0.000). Conclusion The interventions had a significant impact on reducing the GB legitimizing the DV and VYR, and were effective.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it