Dating, sex, and substance use predict increases in adolescents' subjective age across two years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the nature of the relationship between adolescents' subjective age (how old they feel) and chronological age, and explored whether dating, sex, and substance use predicted increases in adolescents' subjective age across a two-year period. The participants were 570 adolescents who were interviewed when they were first ages 12—19 and again two years later (ages 14—21). Results were that a quadratic function characterized the relationship between chronological and subjective age: subjective age increased from age 14 to 18.25 years, and then declined. Adolescents who dated, reported having sex, used alcohol, and used drugs at time 1 experienced an increased subjective age, that is, they felt older than less experienced adolescents by time 2. An older subjective age at time 1 did not predict increases in dating, sex, and substance use behaviors, with one exception: smoking. The results are consistent with theories assuming that self-perceptions of maturity may arise from engaging in “adult-like” behaviors.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".