Young Adults' Perceptions of Their Relationships with Their Stepfathers and Biological Fathers
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
Abstract Ninety-five undergraduate students took part in a study designed to compare young adults' perceptions of their relationships with their stepfathers and fathers. Seventy-three of the students (76.8%) lived in two-biological parent families and 22 of the students (23.2%) lived in mother-stepfather families. Students responded to a Stepfather (or Father) Questionnaire. The questionnaire, a modified version of the Stepparent Behaviour Inventory (SBI) (Fine, Coleman, & Ganong, 1998), contained 14 items that asked how often their stepfather (father) typically behaves in “warm” ways (e.g., “Asks how your day went”) or “controlling” ways (e.g., “Tries to teach you right from wrong”). In addition, all students were asked to rate the closeness of their relationship with their stepfather (father) and the perceived success of their stepfather (father) as a stepparent (parent). Finally, those students residing in mother-stepfather families were asked, in open-ended questions, to discuss the advantages and disadvantages to having a stepfather. Results indicated that fathers were perceived as being warmer, more controlling, and more successful than stepfathers. The most commonly mentioned advantage to having a stepfather was having someone to “help out with the family”; the disadvantage mentioned most often was that stepfathers try to “tell me what to do or boss me around.”
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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