Adolescents' Relationships with Members of the Extended Family and Non-related Adults in Four Countries: Canada, France, Belgium and Italy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the relationships that adolescents from Canada (province of Quebec), France, Belgium, and Italy have with members of their extended family and non-related adults in their social milieu. The sample of 593 subjects was composed of boys and girls from three age groups, ranging from 11 to 18 years. In each country, subjects came from a large city (Montreal, Brussels and Rome) or from a small city of less than 30,000 inhabitants. Three types of information were gathered: the number of people identified as significant, the frequency of contacts with these people, and their principal roles and functions. In the four countries, adolescents identified a number of people whom they considered to be significant within their extended family. The roles played by these people were mainly within the emotional realm. Adolescents identified few significant non-related adults. These adults came mainly from outside of school, and acted primarily as mentors. In the European countries, particularly in Italy, contacts with members of the extended family were frequent, almost weekly. Intergenerational relationships were structured differently in Europe than in Canada, where they were closer and contacts were more frequent.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".