MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Subjective age in early adolescence: Relationships with chronological age, pubertal timing, desired age, and problem behaviors

2011· article· en· W2084250715 on OpenAlexaff
Anita M. Hubley, Rübab G. Arım

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Adolescence · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAge groupsDevelopmental psychologyYoung adultEarly adulthoodFeelingAge of onsetDemographySocial psychologyDiseaseMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subjective age generally refers to the age that one feels. In a cross-sectional questionnaire study of 245 adolescents ages 10-14 years, we examined (a) whether, and when, a cross-over in subjective age occurs, (b) differences in subjective age among pubertal timing groups, (c) correlations between subjective age and each of desired age and five problem behaviors, and (d) the relative contributions of chronological age, pubertal timing, desired age, and problem behaviors to subjective age in boys and girls. Adolescents generally reported subjective and desired ages that were slightly older than their chronological ages. A cross-over in subjective age occurred at 10.4 years. Late maturing adolescents reported relatively younger subjective ages than their early and on-time maturing peers. For boys, only desired age significantly predicted subjective age. For girls, an older desired age, late maturation, and higher scores on anxious/depressed feelings, rule-breaking behavior, and aggressive behavior significantly predicted older subjective ages.

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)0.005
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations15
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AdolescenceSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207