MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415785789 · doi:10.1051/bioconf/202519300080

Child Abuse in Indonesia: A National Trend Analysis and Health Promotion Response (2016-2024)

2025· article· fr· W4415785789 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kinanthi Estu Linadi, Dian Ayubi

Bibliographic record

VenueBIO Web of Conferences · 2025
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionPromotion (chess)Child sexual abuseChild abuseQuarter (Canadian coin)Suicide preventionPoison controlHealth promotionOccupational safety and health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Child abuse remains a critical issue in Indonesia. Cases have been tracked in real time through the Online Information System for the Protection of Women and Children ( SIMFONI-PPA ) since 2016; however, long-term trends have not been comprehensively analysed. This study examined national child abuse trends in Indonesia and explored health promotion strategies for prevention. Secondary data from SIMFONI-PPA were analysed to identify trends in abuse types, victim profiles, perpetrator profiles, and locations. A literature review was conducted to identify prevention strategies employing a health promotion framework grounded in the Ottawa Charter. Findings showed a steady increase in reported child abuse cases. Sexual violence was the most reported abuse, 2–3 times higher than physical or psychological violence and several times more than trafficking or exploitation. Adolescent girls (approximately 70% of victims), aged 13–17 (over 50% victims), were the most affected; about one-third of victims were attending junior high school. Perpetrators were known to the victims, such as lovers or peers (about a quarter of cases), and most incidents occurred at home (around half of reported cases). Indonesia has implemented several prevention strategies, including policy reform, education, and community-based efforts. The rising trend of child abuse in Indonesia underscores the urgent need for multisectoral, context-sensitive interventions focused on improving data collection, service access, and reducing stigma. Future research should explore socio-cultural factors and evaluate the effectiveness of existing prevention programs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBIO Web of ConferencesSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207