Memories of Adolescence: Can Perceptions of Social Supports be Predicted from Baumrind's Traditional Parenting Typologies?
Bibliographic record
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 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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".