Child maltreatment typologies within intergenerational contexts: A latent class study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Child maltreatment (CM) in one generation can predict CM in the next, a concept known as the intergenerational continuity of CM. However, the specific forms of intergenerational CM remain unclear, and fathers are largely absent from this body of literature. This study examined second-generation CM typologies in families where intergenerational continuity was present and assessed the impact of parental CM on these typologies using multilevel latent class analyses. METHOD: = 5,861 children). Two models were examined, one based on intergenerational CM on the mother's side and the other on the father's side. RESULTS: In both models, four latent classes were identified: (a) sexual abuse, physical abuse, and neglect, (b) risk of CM, (c) psychological abuse and exposure to intimate partner violence, and (d) high polyvictimization. Child age and maternal histories of sexual and physical abuse were associated with child class membership, while no paternal CM experiences were associated. CONCLUSIONS: These findings clarify the co-occurrence of CM types and how parental CM influences child typologies of CM in a two-generation sample, providing crucial insights for CM prevention. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".