MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014004693 · doi:10.1080/13668803.2014.1002830

Does parental work affect the psychological well-being and educational success of adolescents?

2015· article· en· W2014004693 on OpenAlexaffabout
Linda Tulk, Sylvie Montreuil, Tamarha Pierce, Michel Pépin

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunity Work & Family · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural equation modelingAffect (linguistics)PsychologyDevelopmental psychologyExploratory analysisNational Longitudinal SurveysExploratory researchSample (material)Psychological well-being

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary goal of this exploratory study was to observe the presence or absence of empirical associations between various parental working conditions, family and, ultimately, the psychological well-being and educational success of young adolescents in Canada. A structural equation model analysis was undertaken from a large Canadian database. This research project used a sub-sample from the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, regrouping 3447 young adolescents, aged 12–15, who generally attend high school. The analysis confirmed the suitability of the model for explaining the trajectory of the hypothesized associations. More specifically, the results confirmed that parental working conditions have an indirect effect on the psychological well-being and educational success of adolescents, through family environment, parenting and the quality of the parent–adolescent relationship. The practical implications of this study 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)0.003
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 score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score0.594

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunity Work & FamilySame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207