MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1581125196 · doi:10.1111/soin.12055

Adolescent Problem Behavior in Toronto, Canada

2014· article· en· W1581125196 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lisa Strohschein, Alvinelle Matthew

Bibliographic record

VenueSociological Inquiry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetropolitan areaSocial capitalPoisson regressionNormativeSubstance usePsychologyPeer pressureSocial psychologySociologyDevelopmental psychologyCriminologyDemographyGeographyClinical psychologyPolitical scienceSocial sciencePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relative association of unique aspects of social capital at the level of families, schools, and neighborhoods on adolescent self‐reported violence, property crimes, and substance use. Data come from the 2006 Canadian International Youth Survey that asked adolescents between the ages of 12 and 15 in the metropolitan city of Toronto (N = 3, 101) about their problem behavior. Poisson regression models revealed that parental monitoring, school performance, peer approval of illegal activities, and neighborhood social disorder were consistently associated with all three adolescent problem behaviors, net of controls. Results were more mixed for remaining measures of social capital on adolescent problem behavior. Interestingly, neighborhood cohesion was a significant predictor of adolescent substance use, but operated in a direction that was contrary to the proposed hypotheses. These findings highlight the importance of teasing out how different facets of social capital in different environments are linked to adolescent problem behavior.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.329 · 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

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociological InquirySame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207