MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1526856277 · doi:10.5539/ijps.v7n2p180

Perceived Paternal Parenting Style and Proactive Coping Strategies of Indian Adolescents

2015· article· en· W1526856277 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pratishtha Bhattacharyya, Rabindra Kumar Pradhan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychological Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyCoping (psychology)AutonomyParenting stylesMultilevel modelPerceptionChild rearingClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parental child rearing practices are regarded as significant step towards development of coping skills in children and adolescents. The role of fathers in child’s progress from infancy through adulthood is undeniable. The unique bond that a father and a child share is instrumental in influencing various behavioural outcomes in children. For a traditional country like India the emergence of active involvement of fathers in parenting is increasingly becoming popular. The present study investigates the influence of perceived paternal parenting styles on adolescents’ coping strategies. Family structure, gender of adolescents and income of father were taken as moderators in the study. The sample of this study was N = 180 (male 45.6% and female 54.4 %). Adolescents from standard X-XI, belonging to joint family (22.8%) and nuclear family (77.2%) were selected from different schools in Kharagpur, West Bengal (India). Analysis of variance and hierarchical multiple regression analysis were carried out for data analysis. Results revealed that adolescents’ perception of paternal demandingness and autonomy granting significantly predicts preventive and instrumental coping strategies among adolescents. Income of father and gender of adolescent were found to moderate the relationship between perceived paternal parenting style and coping strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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