MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049257224 · doi:10.1080/02673843.2011.9748059

Memories of Adolescence: Can Perceptions of Social Supports be Predicted from Baumrind's Traditional Parenting Typologies?

2011· article· en· W2049257224 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel G. Lagacé‐Séguin, Amie E. DeLeavey

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Adolescence and Youth · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParenting stylesPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyAuthoritarianismPerceptionSocial supportScale (ratio)Social psychologyStyle (visual arts)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This study examined the relationships between parenting and adolescent social support, retrospectively. From a more complex point-of-view, the predictive nature of various social supports was examined in relation to Baumrind's traditional parenting typologies. It was hypothesized that authoritarian or neglectful parenting styles would predict low perceived social support and that authoritative parenting styles would predict higher levels of perceived social support. To obtain information pertaining to adolescent development, a sample of 73 first and second year university students completed two questionnaires (Parental Authority Questionnaire, The Social Support Scale for College Students) that required them to think back to their adolescent years (on average five years in the past). Results revealed multiple simple and complex associations. For example, adolescents with authoritative mothers and fathers are more likely to seek social support from family and other adults and adolescents whose fathers employed an authoritarian style possess low perceived social support. Results are discussed in terms of the links between various parenting styles and specific developmental outcomes. Furthermore, the application of the current findings to family functioning is explored.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Adolescence and YouthSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207