MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012913934 · doi:10.1177/002214650504600203

Family Structure and Mental Health: The Mediating Effects of Socioeconomic Status, Family Process, and Social Stress

2005· article· en· W2012913934 on OpenAlexaff
Anne E. Barrett, R. Jay Turner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health and Social Behavior · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Aging
FundersNational Institute on Drug Abuse
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusStepfamilyMental healthPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologySingle-Parent FamilySocial supportDemographyPsychiatrySocial psychologyPopulationSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although numerous studies reveal differences in mental health by the structure of one's family of origin, there remains debate regarding the processes generating these patterns. Using a sample of young adults (19-21 years) in Miami-Dade County in Florida, this study examines the explanatory significance of three presumed correlates of family type: socioeconomic status, family processes, and level of social stress. Consistent with prior research, our results reveal higher levels of depressive symptoms among those from stepfamilies, single parent families, and single parent families with other relatives present, compared with mother-father families. All three presumed correlates make significant independent contributions to the prediction of depressive symptomatology. Substantial mediating effects also are observed for all three explanatory dimensions. Collectively, they completely or largely explain observed family type variations in mental health risk.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations282
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health and Social BehaviorSame topicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingFrench-language works237,207