MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083951086 · doi:10.1177/0022146512442676

Neighborhood Processes, Self-Efficacy, and Adolescent Mental Health

2012· article· en· W2083951086 on OpenAlexafffund
Véronique Dupéré, Tama Leventhal, Frank Vitaro

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health and Social Behavior · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWilliam T. Grant Foundation
KeywordsSelf-efficacyPsychologyCollective efficacyMental healthAssociation (psychology)AnxietyDevelopmental psychologyCognitionSuicide preventionPredictabilityHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlClinical psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatryMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self-efficacy beliefs are central to mental health. Because adolescents' neighborhoods shape opportunities for experiences of control, predictability, and safety, we propose that neighborhood conditions are associated with adolescents' self-efficacy and, in turn, their internalizing problems (i.e., depression/anxiety symptoms). We tested these hypotheses using three waves of data from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (N = 2,345). Results indicate that adolescents living in violent neighborhoods tended to report lower self-efficacy beliefs, partly because they were more likely to experience fear in their neighborhood. However, moving out of Chicago neighborhoods marked by violence and low collective efficacy to neighborhoods outside of the city was associated with adolescents' increased self-efficacy (vs. staying in such neighborhoods), an association explained by adolescents' school-related experiences. Finally, through self-efficacy, these neighborhood processes had an indirect association with adolescents' internalizing problems. Results partially support a model linking neighborhood conditions, cognitions about the self, and emotions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations177
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health and Social BehaviorSame topicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation StudiesFrench-language works237,207