Types de familles, conditions de vie, fonctionnement du système familial et inadaptation sociale au cours de la latence et de l’adolescence dans les milieux défavorisés
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Available data on the impact of certain types of families is lacking, and the results are often misleading with respect to maladjustment. Following a description of variations in delinquent activity and behaviour problems according to family type, the authors analyse the difficulties in the operation of family systems. Comparisons of six family types apply to data from 763 boys aged 10, 319 female and 426 male adolescents, aged 14 and 15: intact families, father-based and mother-based single-parent families, father-based and mother-based reconstituted families and substitute families. The article's data show that in the late eighties, nearly 40 per cent of children and adolescents living in low-income districts in Montreal belonged to disunited families. In addition, the data confirm a classic observation: in comparison with intact families, disunited families are underprivileged in relation to living conditions, deficient in relation to psychosocial functioning, and propitious to behaviour problems and delinquent activity. In addition, it has been established that certain disunited family types represent a considerable risk factor. The damaging effect of family structure increases in the following order: intact families, mother-based single-parent families, mother-based reconstituted families, substitute families, father-based reconstituted families and father-based single-parent families. Finally, certain intervention methods are suggested to help prevent behaviour and family problems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".