Developmental trajectories of romantic stages and associations with problem behaviours during adolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Normative romantic development is theorized to progress through a series of stages: affiliative activities, group-based dating, and romantic relationships. The objectives of this research were threefold: empirically examine this progression of romantic stages during adolescence, determine normative and atypical trajectories, and examine links with internalizing and externalizing symptoms. An eight-wave longitudinal study was conducted with 698 adolescents (53.6% female; M(age) = 11.8 years at start of study). A group-based trajectory approach was employed to identify prototypical trajectories of romantic development and a model with three distinct romantic trajectories (i.e., On-time, Early Starters and Late Bloomers) was identified. Both timing and sequencing of romantic activity differed among trajectory groups. Analysis of Variance (ANOVAs) identified associations between Early Starters and externalizing behaviours in early, middle and later adolescence. The findings support progression through theorized stages of romantic activity and highlight the problems that are linked to early-starting and non-sequenced romantic development.
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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".