Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 94 adolescents (M age = 14.2 years) participated in 20-minute hypothetical conflict discussions with either their mothers or fathers (24 daughter-mother, 22 son-mother, 25 daughter-father, 23 son-father dyads). Audiotaped conversations were coded for speakers’ conversational style (overlaps between turns, simultaneous speech, and successful interruptions) and hostile emotional expressions (i.e., disgust/contempt). Adolescents used a conversational style that included more overlaps, simultaneous speech and successful interruptions than their parents, with the greatest differences in styles found for adolescents and their mothers. Adolescents’ and parents’ conversational styles and expressions of disgust were analyzed in modeling procedures in an attempt to predict selfreported perceptions of adolescent-parent conflict. Results revealed that adolescents’ rates of disgust were positively predicted from both the degree of difference in the adolescent’s and parent’s conversational styles and from the parent’s rates of disgust expressions. In turn, adolescents’ expressions of disgust were found to positively predict adolescents’ perceptions of levels of relationship conflict with their parents.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".