FAMILY PROBLEM-SOLVING: HOW DO FAMILIES WITH ADOLESCENTS MAKE DECISIONS?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present study, we adopt an observational method for the analysis of family members’ interactions during a problem-solving task. The specific focus of our work is to put the family as a whole beneath the lens of observation, as well as to analyze how the parents and the adolescent separately contribute to the task solution. Twenty-eight non-clinical families with adolescents (13 to 16 years old) were filmed in their homes during a problem-solving task. Family interactions were analyzed according to four observational measures: family efficiency, family communication, family climate, and family participation. Three different patterns of family decision-making are described: families that control (high efficiency, calm family climate, collaborative participation), families that surrender (low efficiency, tense family climate, individual participation), and families that struggle (intermediate efficiency, serious family climate, alternated participation). Theoretical and practical implications in terms of everyday ways of dealing with problems in families with adolescents are discussed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it