MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Adolescents’ perceptions of parental practices: A cross‐national comparison of Canada, France, and Italy

2010· article· en· W2148748460 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michel Claes, Cyrille Perchec, Dave Miranda, Amélie Benoît, Françoise Bariaud, Margherita Lanz, Elena Marta, Éric Lacourse

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Adolescence · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyParental controlPerceived controlCross-culturalSample (material)Parenting styles

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study compares two dimensions of parenting-emotional bonding and control-as perceived by adolescents living in three countries: Canada (province of Québec), France, and Italy. A cross-sectional sample was composed of 1256 adolescents who filled out a self-report questionnaire. Multiple Correspondence Analyses provided a graphic synthesis of cross-cultural results. Results indicate that parents are perceived as highly emotionally bonded, yet the perception of parental control produced two contrasting models. Canadian adolescents perceive less control and disciplinary actions from parents, and more tolerance. Conversely, Italian adolescents perceive more requirements and rules, and stricter disciplinary actions, while French adolescents' perceptions fall between the two. Results also suggested a gradual decrease in the perception of parental control between the ages of 11 and 19 years across all three countries. This reduction in parental constraints is perceived earlier by Canadian adolescents and later by Italian adolescents.

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 score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations43
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AdolescenceSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207