Young Adults' Perceptions of Their Relationships with Their Stepfathers and Biological Fathers
Bibliographic record
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.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".