Exploring the Protective and Promotive Effects of School Connectedness on the Relation between Psychological Health Risk and Problem Behaviors/Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The broad construct of school connectedness has been identified as a developmental protective factor due to itsassociation with lower involvement in a variety of problem behaviors. However, resilience research differentiatesbetween protective (lower frequency of problem behaviors primarily in the presence of high risk) and promotive(lower frequency of problem behaviors primarily in conditions of low risk) developmental influences, and thishas been an understudied aspect of school connectedness. This study examined the potential protective andpromotive influences of school connectedness in a sample of 3,220 students in Grades 8, 10, and 12 from fourCalifornia school districts. These youths completed self-reports of their psychological health risk, perceptions ofschool connectedness, and involvement in problem behaviors/experiences. Taking a person-focused data analysisapproach, a series of multinomial logistic regressions found that although school connectedness was protectivefor involvement in problem behaviors/experiences, more support was found for its promotive influences.Implications for research and practice are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".