Protective and compensatory factors mitigating the influence of deviant friends on delinquent behaviours during early adolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined factors that could moderate or compensate the link between exposure to deviant friends and delinquent behaviours in a sample of 265 early adolescents. The putative moderating or compensatory factors referred to the behavioural domain (i.e. novelty seeking, harm avoidance), the biological domain (i.e. physical maturation), the sociofamily domain (i.e. sociofamily adversity, parental practices), the school domain (i.e. academic performance), and the social domain (i.e. peer acceptance). A series of regression analyses showed that novelty seeking and puberty status moderated the link between friends' self-reported delinquency and participants' self-reported delinquency. In addition, all the factors except peer acceptance also had main effects that, cumulatively, reduced the association between friends' delinquency and self-rated delinquency through compensatory main effects. These results are discussed in light of the differential roles of moderating and of compensatory factors.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".