MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135055167 · doi:10.1080/13632750701664293

Peer relationships and internalizing problems in adolescents: mediating role of self‐esteem

2007· article· en· W2135055167 on OpenAlexafffund
Sandra Bosacki, Andrew V. Dane, Zopito A. Marini, YLC‐CURA

Bibliographic record

VenueEmotional and Behavioural Difficulties · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFriendshipPsychologyAlienationSelf-esteemSocial isolationSocial alienationSocial anxietyAnxietyDevelopmental psychologyPeer groupClinical psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined whether self‐esteem mediated the association between peer relationships and internalizing problems (i.e., depression and social anxiety). A total of 7290 (3756 girls) adolescents (ages 13–18 years) completed self‐report measures of peer relationships, including direct and indirect victimization, social isolation, friendship attachment (alienation and trust) and friendship quality (conflict and support), as well as self‐esteem, social anxiety and depression. Regression analyses indicated that self‐esteem partially mediated the relations between social isolation, friendship attachment (alienation) and both depression and social anxiety, whereas friendship attachment (trust) was a partial mediator for depression only. Overall, linkages between peer relationships and depression were more strongly mediated by self‐esteem than those between peer relationships and social anxiety. Theoretical and applied implications of these findings 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations110
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmotional and Behavioural DifficultiesSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207