MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140451304 · doi:10.1177/0022022111405657

Perceived Parental and Peer Support in Relation to Canadian, Cuban, and Spanish Adolescents’ Valuing of Academics and Intrinsic Academic Motivation

2011· article· en· W2140451304 on OpenAlexaffabout
Irene Vitoroulis, Barry H. Schneider, Consuelo Cerviño Vásquez, María del Pilar Soteras del Toro, Yorkys Santana González

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cross-Cultural Psychology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParental Involvement in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyEthnic groupIntrinsic motivationSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologySample (material)Peer groupSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to explore possible parent and peer influences on adolescents’ valuing of academics and intrinsic academic motivation in cultures varying in traditional emphasis on the family unit (Cuba, Canada, and Spain). Perceived parent and peer support, parents’ expectations, and valuing of academics significantly predicted adolescents’ valuing of education and motivation. Spanish adolescents were less motivated than members of the other ethnic groups. The Spanish participants also reported lower perceived parental expectations than Chinese Canadians and less perceived peer support than did Cubans and Chinese Canadians. Perceived social support from same- and opposite-sex friends predicted adolescents’ valuing of academics and intrinsic motivation most strongly in the Canadian sample. Cuban parents’ perceived valuing of academics predicted adolescents’ intrinsic academic motivation more strongly than in the other cultures sampled.

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)0.002
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 score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score0.866

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations27
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cross-Cultural PsychologySame topicParental Involvement in EducationFrench-language works237,207