Ideological and Nihilistic Violence in Adolescents Referred to a Specialized Clinic for Violent Extremism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epidemiological surveys document changes in youth attitudes towards violence, but empirical data on clinical samples of adolescents involved in or at risk of ideologically motivated and nihilistic violence is surprisingly scarce, making it difficult to understand the risk and protective factors, as well as the specific clinical needs and characteristics of youth at risk of or involved in these forms of violent behaviors. This article uses a mixed-method concurrent triangulation design to combine quantitative data collected from the clinical files of clients referred to the Montreal Polarization team and qualitative data collected via a focus group with practitioners. It compares adolescents attracted by ideological and nihilistic violence ( n = 58) with their adult counterparts ( n = 66). Results show that nihilistic violence is more common in adolescents than in adults. In adolescents attracted by ideological and nihilistic violence, stress-related disorders are the most frequent diagnosis and family and school grievances are at the forefront of documented adversities. Intervention should privilege a grievance-based and trauma-informed approach to adolescents expressing their distress through violence, favouring reintegration and minimizing exclusion and stigmatization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".