Sources of Information about Dating and Their Perceived Influence on Adolescents
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
This study examined the impact of parents, peers, the media, and sex education on shaping adolescents’knowledge about dating relationships. Half of the 100 (48 females, 52 males) participants were early adolescents (13 to 14 years) and half were middle adolescents (15 to 16 years). Through a questionnaire, participants identified the quantity of information, perceived correctness, and influence of each of the sources. Friends and sex education teachers were perceived to provide the most information, adults to provide the most accurate information, and friends to have the greatest influence on dating choices. Sex differences existed across various questions and source types. Girls received more information on dating across sources, perceived parents and the media to be more accurate sources of information, and were more influenced by their parents than were boys. Boys gave higher rankings to dating partners and dating behavior as comfortable sources of information than did girls.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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