Analyzing Cultural Models in Adolescent Accounts of Romantic Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on academic achievement has led the way in demonstrating how culturally constructed meanings shape adolescent scholastic behavior. The aim of this research is to move this standpoint of analysis more centrally into the area of adolescent dating and sexuality by focusing on the cultural components of adolescent romantic relationships. This study examines cultural models of romantic relationships in Vernacular Term Interviews of 68 African American and 59 Mexican American 11th‐ and 12th‐grade female and male high school students. A subset of interviews was analyzed first qualitatively to identify the models. The models then were committed to a manual and 4 analytic coders established reliability before coding all interviews blind as to race/ethnicity and gender of the adolescent. The resultant data were summarized by a principal components analysis that yielded 5 interpretable factors. Factor scores were computed and compared for gender and race/ethnicity differences. The results demonstrated clear differences in factors by race/ethnicity but not by gender. Results are discussed in relation to cultural differences described in the literature for these 2 populations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".