A Longitudinal Study of Religious Doubts in High School and Beyond: Relationships, Stability, and Searching for Answers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This questionnaire study of 939 senior high school students, and a follow‐up of 336 of these people two years later, investigated a variety of issues related to religious doubts and their implications for adolescents’ lives. Although average doubt levels were “mild” as measured by the Religious Doubts scale, the greatest doubts were expressed based on religion’s failure to make people “better,” the claimed infallibility of scriptures, and pressures to accept religious teachings. Doubting was consistently related to decreased personal religiousness, and doubt levels remained relatively stable over the two years of this study. Greater doubting was linked with more problematic family environments, and less parental warmth and strictness. There was mixed evidence that doubt was associated with poorer personal adjustment, and when these relationships were investigated within major denominational subgroupings, only (some) associations for mainstream Protestants were significant. Doubting was also associated with an inclination to consult anti‐religious sources of information (rather than pro‐religious sources), and these styles of consultation also predicted levels of future religiousness.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".