Parent and Peer Effects on Delinquency‐related Violence and Dating Violence: A Test of Two Mediational Models
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Drawing on two complementary process models of violence, i.e., social cognitive theory and rejection sensitivity theory, the goal of the present study was (1) to examine the unique effects of parents and peers on boys’ violent behavior in delinquency‐related contexts and in dating relationships, (2) to assess the mediating processes underlying these links, and (3) to test whether these processes operate in the same way for delinquency‐related violence and dating violence. Based on a sample of 336 boys, results showed that problematic experiences with parents and with peers each predicted subsequent violence, both in delinquency‐related and in dating‐related contexts. However, the contributions of the social cognitive model and the rejection sensitivity model in explaining these links varied somewhat depending on the situational context of the violent behavior. The implications of the similarities and specificities in the risk factors and pathways leading to delinquency‐related violence and dating violence 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it