MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099407725 · doi:10.1177/0193841x0102500602

Characteristics of Responding-, Nonresponding- and Refusing-Parents in an Adolescent Lifestyle Choice Study

2001· article· en· W2099407725 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEvaluation Review · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParental consentInformed consentPsychologyScale (ratio)Clinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The acquisition of a random sample is one of the many methodological problems that arise when conducting research with adolescent populations. Frequently, due to ethical considerations associated with collecting data from adolescents, active parental consent procedures are required. The current study examined characteristics of parents who consented, refused consent, or did not respond to an active consent request for their children to participate in a large-scale study of adolescent lifestyle behaviors. Results indicated nonresponding-parents were more likely to be employed than consenting-parents. Further, differences were found for a number of attitudinal variables and about the importance of adolescent research. There were significant differences between refusing-parents, and consenting- and nonresponding-parents who were similar in their attitudes toward adolescent research. The findings suggest that nonresponding-parents are characteristically more similar to consenting-parents than to refusing-parents, which supports the use of passive consent procedures as a reasonable alternative to requiring active parental consent in adolescent research.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.281
GPT teacher head0.555
Teacher spread0.274 · 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