What about the family in intrafamilial child sexual abuse? There is significantly more familial dysfunction in families with intrafamilial child sexual abuse than in other families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are important scientific gaps in the understanding of the role of familial dysfunction in intrafamilial child sexual abuse perpetration and victimisation. We present the findings of a systematic review and a comparative (k = 18) and prevalence (k = 39) meta-analysis of intrafamilial child sexual abuse and familial dysfunction. We compared 3676 families in which intrafamilial child sexual abuse had occurred with 1120 families in which extrafamilial and 1145 families in which no (intrafamilial) child sexual abuse had occurred. We found that families with intrafamilial child sexual abuse experienced more familial dysfunction across all domains compared to comparison families, with odds ratios ranging from 1.10 (lower educational attainment) to 5.06 (parental alcohol abuse). Families with intrafamilial child sexual abuse experienced more socio-ecological stressors (e.g., homelessness), disorganised family structures (e.g., non-intact parental structures), dysfunctional relationships (e.g., spousal conflict), nonsexual abuse (e.g., exposure to intimate partner violence), and parental vulnerabilities (e.g., mental health and substance abuse problems) than the comparison families. The prevalence meta-analysis indicated that almost half of the families with intrafamilial child sexual abuse also experienced one or more co-occurring forms of nonsexual abuse - 48 % physical abuse, 37 % emotional abuse, 34 % neglect, and 42 % exposure to intimate partner violence - and that this was significantly higher than the comparison families. The results of this meta-analysis highlight gaps and directions for further research on the role of familial dysfunction in intrafamilial child sexual abuse, and the aetiology and prognosis of polyvictimisation.
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 | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".