MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1799491775 · doi:10.1111/jomf.12074

Paths to Intimate Relationship Quality From Parent–Adolescent Relations and Mental Health

2014· article· en· W1799491775 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew D. Johnson, Nancy L. Galambos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marriage and the Family · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMental healthLongitudinal studyYoung adultDevelopmental psychologyPath analysis (statistics)Quality (philosophy)Structural equation modelingSelf-esteemAdolescent healthQuality of life (healthcare)Clinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using a developmental systems perspective and public‐use longitudinal data from participants currently in a romantic relationship at Wave 4 of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (n = 2,970), the current study explored direct and indirect paths from parent–adolescent relationship quality to young adult intimate relationship quality. Structural equation modeling tested whether mental health (depressive symptoms and self‐esteem) in the transition to adulthood mediated the association between parent–adolescent relations and young adult intimate relations. The results indicated that higher quality parent–adolescent relations predicted higher self‐esteem and lower depressive symptoms during the transition to adulthood as well as higher young adult intimate relationship quality, controlling for adolescent mental health and parent–young adult relationship quality. Higher self‐esteem during the transition to adulthood was associated with greater intimate relationship quality, whereas greater depressive symptomatology predicted reduced intimate relationship quality. One significant indirect path emerged: parent–adolescent relationship quality → self‐esteem → intimate relationship quality.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.357 · 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

Citations90
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Marriage and the FamilySame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207