MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145460804 · doi:10.12927/hcpol.2007.18701

Connectedness within Social Contexts: The Relation to Adolescent Health

2007· article· en· W2145460804 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Melanie Yugo, M. Meghan Davidson

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare policy · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Health Information
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial connectednessAdolescent healthPsychologyLogistic regressionDevelopmental psychologyLongitudinal studySocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

International studies have shown that the more developmental assets adolescents possess, the greater their likelihood of engaging in health-enhancing practices and the lesser their likelihood of engaging in practices that put health at risk. Logistic regressions were conducted on data from the 2000-2001 National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY) for 12- to 15-year-old Canadian youth to examine which of five assets accounts for the most variance in positive health outcomes and participation in risky health behaviours. Connectedness within social contexts, particularly to family and school, was associated with several self-reported positive health outcomes and behaviours (excellent or very good health, high self-worth, and less alcohol, tobacco and marijuana use). Connectedness among peers was associated with better self-assessed health and higher self-worth but also with more use of alcohol, tobacco and marijuana. A comprehensive approach to healthy youth development that emphasizes and increases positive relationships in these contexts may facilitate the transition of Canadian youth into healthy 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 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)0.006
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 score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.361 · 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

Citations29
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare policySame topicYouth Development and Social SupportFrench-language works237,207