MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1499208409 · doi:10.18357/ijcyfs44201312694

TRAJECTORIES OF PARENTAL MONITORING KNOWLEDGE AND THEIR ASSOCIATIONS WITH ADOLESCENTS’ SUBSTANCE USE, POOR ACADEMIC OUTCOMES, AND BEHAVIOUR PROBLEMS

2013· article· en· W1499208409 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Leanne Findlay, Rochelle Garner, Dafna Kohen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Child Youth and Family Studies · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParental monitoringPsychologyAssociation (psychology)Developmental psychologySubstance useNational Longitudinal SurveysDemographyClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lower levels of perceived parental monitoring knowledge have been associated with various risk behaviours among children and youth. Data from the Canadian National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth were used to: 1) identify longitudinal patterns of parental monitoring knowledge through early adolescence; 2) explore associations between these patterns and socio-demographic factors; and 3) examine the association between patterns of parental monitoring knowledge and behavioural and academic outcomes. Results revealed that a 3-group model best represented patterns of parental monitoring knowledge. Socio-demographic factors were found to differentiate membership in these patterns. Findings also suggested that lower levels of perceived parental monitoring knowledge were associated with higher levels of behaviour problems, poorer academic outcomes, and a greater likelihood of substance use.

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)0.004
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 score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Child Youth and Family StudiesSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207