Pubertal development, personality, and substance use: A 10-year longitudinal study from childhood to adolescence.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most research linking early pubertal development to substance use has focused on the effects of pubertal timing (age at which a certain stage of pubertal development is reached or pubertal status at a particular age--related to the maturation disparity hypothesis), but little research has focused on pubertal tempo (rate of growth through pubertal stages--related to the maturation compression hypothesis). However, both timing and tempo have not only been identified as important components of pubertal development, with different predictors, but have also been shown to be independently associated with other adolescent psychopathologies. Using latent growth-curve modeling, this study examined how pubertal status at age 12 and pubertal tempo (between 11 and 13 years) related to substance use from 15 to 16 years in boys from low socioeconomic backgrounds (N = 871). Results showed that both pubertal status at age 12 and tempo were significant predictors of increased levels of substance use and problems in mid to late adolescence. In an attempt to identify mechanisms that may explain the association between pubertal development and substance use it was found that sensation seeking partially mediated the association between pubertal status at age 12 and substance use behaviors. Impulse control was found to moderate the association sensation seeking had with marijuana use frequency, with high sensation-seeking scores predicting higher marijuana use frequency only at low levels of impulse control. These findings highlight the importance of considering multiple sources of individual variability in the pubertal development of boys and provide support for both the maturational disparity and compression hypotheses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".