MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W126851060

Adolescent self-concept and health into adulthood.

2003· article· en· W126851060 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jungwee Park

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdolescent healthSelf-rated healthSelf-conceptLongitudinal studyPsychologyCross-sectional studyObesityConfoundingDepression (economics)National Longitudinal SurveysDevelopmental psychologyPopulationYoung adultDemographyGerontologyMedicineEnvironmental health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This article examines factors associated with adolescent self-concept and the impact of adolescent self-concept on psychological and physical health and health behaviour in young adulthood. DATA SOURCE: The data are from the household cross-sectional (1994/95) and longitudinal (1994/95 to 2000/01) components of Statistics Canada's National Population Health Survey. ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: Scores on self-concept indicators in 1994/95 were compared between the sexes and age groups (12 to 15 versus 16 to 19). Multivariate analyses were used to examine cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between adolescent self-concept and depression, self-perceived health, physical activity and obesity, controlling for other possible confounders. MAIN RESULTS: Self-concept tends to be low among girls compared with boys. Cross-sectionally, adolescent self-concept was associated with household income and emotional support. For girls and for young adolescents, a weak self-concept in 1994/95 was related to the incidence of depression over the next six years; it was also predictive of physical inactivity among boys, and obesity among both sexes. A strong self-concept had a positive long-term effect on girls' self-perceived health.

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)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations48
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207