Depression in Young Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Associations between parenting style and depressive symptomatology in a community sample of young adolescents (N = 2596) were investigated using self-report measures including the Parental Bonding Instrument and the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale. Specifically, the 25-item 2-factor and 3-factor models by Parker et al. (1979), Kendler's (1996) 16-item 3-factor model, and Parker's (1983) quadrant model for the Parental Bonding Instrument were compared. Data analysis included analysis of variance and logistic regression. Reanalysis of Parker's original scale indicates that overprotection is composed of separate factors: intrusiveness (at the individual level) and restrictiveness (in the social context). All models reveal significant independent contributions from paternal care, maternal care, and maternal overprotection (2-factor) or intrusiveness (3-factor) to moderate and serious depressive symptomatology, controlling for sex and family living arrangement. Additive rather than multiplicative interactions between care and overprotection were found. Regardless of the level of parental care and affection, clinicians should note that maternal intrusiveness is strongly associated with adverse psychosocial health in young adolescents.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".