Sexual abuse of children with intellectual disabilities: factors that aid or impede mothers in protecting their children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although all children are vulnerable to maltreatment, children with disabilities have been demonstrated to be particularly vulnerable to all forms of abuse and neglect, including child sexual abuse. A qualitative, interdisciplinary study was undertaken in two urban centres in Southern Ontario that examined factors, systemic or otherwise, that aided or impeded individual mothers in protecting their children with developmental/intellectual disabilities from extra-familial child sexual abuse. In-depth interviews were conducted with mothers, their children, therapists, police officers, assistant Crown attorneys, victim witness assistance personnel, and court preparation workers. The study resulted in five portraits, four of which describe the experience of dealing with the sexual abuse from disclosure onwards, and one which deals with the observed experience of a child with developmental disabilities in court. Each portrait was examined from a personal/psychological, legal, and ecological point of view. The dual impact of caring for a child with a disability and dealing with the aftermath of child sexual abuse was considered. The portraits suggest that mothers and their children with disabilities, who have been sexually abused, are faced with sizable obstacles in the pursuit of justice and psychological recovery. In spite of recent changes and the efforts of individual professionals, most systems and organizations mandated to respond to this problem appear to be in many ways unprepared to deal with child victims with intellectual/developmental disabilities
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".