MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1549589648 · doi:10.1111/fare.12040

Boundary Diffusion, Individuation, and Adjustment: Comparison of Young Adults Raised in Divorced Versus Intact Families

2013· article· en· W1549589648 on OpenAlexaff
Marei B. Perrin, Marion F. Ehrenberg, Michael A. Hunter

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily Relations · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Support in Illness
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndividuationPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyYoung adultTriangulationPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anchored in structural family systems theory, this study investigated the role of psychological individuation during young adulthood in mediating the relationship between growing up in families with diffuse boundaries and poor psychological health outcomes. A sample of 404 young adults was recruited to reflect relatively equal numbers of individuals raised in two‐parent married households and those who had experienced their parents' separation by age 14. Participants completed self‐report questionnaires to assess specific types of cross‐generational boundary diffusion in the forms of parentification and triangulation experienced in their adolescence, individuation, and general psychological and relationship adjustment. Experiences of boundary diffusion were commonplace recollections for young adults with divorced parents, revealing a large effect size in comparison to young persons raised in intact families. As expected, individuation mediated the significant relationship between boundary diffusion, especially in the form of triangulation, and psychological and relationship adjustment outcomes. The role of gender was explored.

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)0.002
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations27
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFamily RelationsSame topicFamily Support in IllnessFrench-language works237,207