‘It Broke Him and Us’: Examining the Extent and Impact of Aggression Towards Family/Caregivers in Childhood and Adolescence During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Canada Based on Insights from Adoptive and Customary Caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on aggression towards family/caregivers in childhood and adolescence (AFCCA) is still emerging, particularly within the Canadian context. To better understand this behaviour, we examined potential changes in the severity and frequency of different AFCCA types as well as in caregiver-child relationships and disruptions to families’ lives during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this convergent/parallel mixed-method research study, 168 Canadian caregivers living with a young person who exhibited AFCCA completed an online survey that contained self-report questionnaires and open-ended questions. The sample consisted primarily of adoptive mothers. Descriptive and hybrid thematic analyses indicated that around half the sample reported an increase in the severity (verbal 43.9%, threats 39.8%, emotional/psychological 49.2%, physical 44.3%) and frequency (verbal 51.2%, threats 47.8%, emotional/psychological 54.6%, physical 48.3%) of most AFCCA types. The quality of the caregiver-child relationship also worsened significantly after the pandemic ( t [115] = 3.5, p = .001). Qualitative analyses supported this finding. While there was no statistically significant difference in AFCCA-related disruptions to families’ lives during the pandemic, thematic analyses revealed increased caregiver disruptions to both personal aspects (e.g. self-care practices, alcohol/substance use) and professional obligations (e.g. missed work). This study underscores the need for sustained and accessible (online and in-person) supports that are grounded in intersectionality, responsive to families’ unique needs and sensitive to young people’s experiences with past adversity.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".