MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415385206 · doi:10.1177/01650254251383008

Childhood conduct problems and adolescent sexual harassment victimization: Understanding the role of cumulative processes

2025· article· en· W4415385206 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Marie‐Louise Bolduc, Alexa Martin‐Storey, Geneviève Paquette, Mélanie Lapalme, Michèle Déry

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Behavioral Development · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaFonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et Culture
KeywordsHarassmentConduct disorderIntervention (counseling)Vulnerability (computing)Sexual abuseAssociation (psychology)Longitudinal studyPeer groupHuman factors and ergonomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sexual harassment victimization is prospectively associated with poorer mental health, accounting for other forms of victimization. To better understand the link between childhood conduct problems and vulnerability for sexual harassment, the three objectives of this study were to (1) examine the links between childhood conduct problems and sexual harassment victimization during early adulthood; (2) identify the mediating role of common developmental sequelae of childhood conduct problems (adolescent peer victimization, substance abuse, risky sexual behavior, and number of delinquent peers) in this association; and (3) explore whether these links differed for boys and girls. Participants were drawn from a longitudinal sample that over-recruited children with conduct problems ( N = 744; 50.5% conduct problems; age M : 8.42; 47% girls), from Quebec, Canada. Childhood conduct problems were linked to increased sexual harassment victimization in early adulthood (β = 0.08, p < .05), an association that was mediated by adolescent peer victimization (β = 0.04, p < .01; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.01, 0.06) and adolescent substance use (β = 0.02, p < .05; 95% CI: 0.003, 0.05). Differences were not observed across either model for boys and girls. Findings suggest the pertinence of assessing the existing prevention and intervention approaches for populations with conduct problems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.261
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Behavioral DevelopmentSame topicSexual Assault and Victimization StudiesFrench-language works237,207