Le style parental des beaux-péres dans les familles recomposées.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several studies have shown the importance of the stepfather-stepchild relationship in the successful adaptation of young people to stepfamilies. Indeed, when there is a good affective relationship between a stepfather and stepchild, there is a lower risk of the stepchild having problems. Though it is known that the quality of this relationship has an impact, there is still a great deal of uncertainty about the best way for stepfathers to fulfill their role. This article examines how the stepfather's parenting style influences the externalised and internalised behaviour problems of young people in stepfamilies. The data were obtained from interviews with 104 adolescents (63.5 % girls; 36.5 % boys) who answered the Youth Self-Report (Achenbach, 1991), the Parental Authority Questionnaire (Buri, 1991), and the Child Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire (Rohner, 1984). The results show that the majority of young people saw their stepfather as being involved in their upbringing. More than a third of the sample considered that their stepfather was authoritarian, and another third saw him as authoritative. The young people's level of adaptation was associated with the stepfather's parenting style. Young people who saw their stepfather as being authoritative or warm particularly benefited from the relationship.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".