MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013000030 · doi:10.1177/0165025409360292

Adolescent romantic relationships in China and Canada: A cross-national comparison

2010· article· en· W2013000030 on OpenAlexaffabout
Zhihong Li, Jennifer Connolly, Depeng Jiang, Debra Pepler, Wendy Craig

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Behavioral Development · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRomancePsychologyDevelopmental psychologyChinaContext (archaeology)Social psychologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study compared the romantic involvements of Canadian and Chinese adolescents as well as linkages with friend and parental relationships. Participants were 496 Chinese adolescents and 395 Canadian adolescents, aged 16—17 years. Chinese adolescents were less likely to have any form of romantic involvement, including a romantic relationship, displayed lower levels of romantic experience, and had fewer close romantic relationships. Gender moderated cultural differences, with Chinese girls least involved in romantic experiences. Although friendships were more intimate in Canada and parent relationships were closer in China, the linkages of parental and friend relationships with romantic experience were quite consistent across the two cultures, with friends being positively linked to romantic experiences and parents indirectly linked through their connection to friends. Among Chinese adolescents, parents also directly connected with romantic experiences in a negative direction. Implications of the findings for understanding the interface between individual growth and cultural context are discussed.

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)0.002
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 score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.377 · 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

Citations54
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Behavioral DevelopmentSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207