MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reconceptualizing Parent‐Adolescent Relationships: A Dialogic Model

2009· article· en· W1989919133 on OpenAlexaff
Lynda M. Ashbourne

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Theory & Review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDialogicDialecticMeaning (existential)Perspective (graphical)Context (archaeology)Set (abstract data type)Identity (music)PsychologySocial psychologyMeaning-makingDevelopmental psychologySociologyEpistemologyPsychotherapistPedagogyAestheticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The author applies a dialogic view of communication to parent‐adolescent relationships, allowing for explicit attention to the process of interaction and social construction of meaning within these relationships. The constitutive role of dialogue between parent and adolescent is set within the context of competing tensions or dialectics. This theoretical framework provides a perspective for attending to parents' and adolescents' experiences and relational interactions, as well as meaning making and identity formation occurring within the dialogic gap.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.641
Threshold uncertainty score0.844

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.144
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family Theory & ReviewSame topicCounseling, Therapy, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207