Risk and protection factors in the peer context: how do other children contribute to the psychosocial adjustment of the adolescent?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As children become adolescents, peers assume greater importance in their lives. Peer experiences can either help them thrive or negatively affect their psychosocial adjustment. In this review article definitions for the types of peer experiences are provided followed by an overview of common psychosocial issues encountered by adolescents. Past research that has pointed to risk and protection factors that emerge from peer experiences during adolescence and the role of peer influences in the context of current issues relevant to adolescent education are discussed. Research suggests that friendships with deviant peers, involvement in bullying and the experience of rejection from the overall peer group are related to adjustment problems, whereas friendships with prosocial and academically oriented peers and social acceptance in the peer group are related to healthy development. Friendship quality, popularity among peers, and involvement in friendship cliques cannot be clearly categorized as either positive or negative influences, because they interact with other factors in shaping the development of adolescents. The promotion of social skills and positive youth leadership as an integral part of the student's learning process in school is recommended.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".