Positive parenting in adolescence and its relation to low point narration and identity status in emerging adulthood: A longitudinal analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this longitudinal study, we examined identity development using the life story model (McAdams, 2001), in addition to a traditional identity status approach, in order to explore the association between perceived parenting in adolescence and the subsequent quality of life story narration in emerging adulthood. Participants (N = 100) were given a battery of questionnaires at ages 17 and 26 years and were asked to narrate a story at age 26 about their most difficult life experience. Low point narratives were analyzed for evidence of concluding clarity, resolution, and affective tone, termed coherent positive resolution (Pals, 2006). Structural equation modeling showed that participants who experienced more positive parenting at age 17 narrated their low points with clearer evidence of coherent positive resolution at age 26. Coherent positive resolution of the low point was also related to concurrent measures of identity achievement and emotional adjustment at age 26. Discussion centers on the potential impact of positive parenting as a contributor to healthy low point narration and identity in emerging adulthood.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".