Investigative interviews conducted with minor victims of sexual abuse: a comparison of children and 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
To increase knowledge about the forensic interviews conducted with adolescents and children, this study compared 44 forensic interviews conducted with adolescents (ages 13–16) with those conducted with children (ages 7–10) victims of sexual abuse (SA). Comparisons were made on 1) the elaboration of victims’ responses regarding the type of content describing the SA and 2) the types of questions interviewers made to elicit this content. Both age groups provided highly-elaborated responses about actions and body parts, although children provided more evasive responses than adolescents regarding other potential victims or witnesses and the SA context. The interviewers employed more suggestive questions with adolescents about the SA context, and more invitations with children about internal referents. Interviewers are recommended to use more open-ended questions with adolescents, and future studies should focus on the reasons for using more suggestive questioning with adolescents.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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