MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154304601 · doi:10.1177/0011000009358459

Belongingness as a Protective Factor Against Loneliness and Potential Depression in a Multicultural Middle School

2010· article· en· W2154304601 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Thomas W. Baskin, Bruce E. Wampold, Stephen M. Quintana, Robert D. Enright

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Counseling Psychologist · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRyerson UniversityUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonUniversity of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
KeywordsBelongingnessLonelinessPsychologyModerationEthnically diverseClinical psychologySocial connectednessDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyEthnic group

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines belongingness as a strengths-based protective factor. Belongingness is investigated in relationship to the threat of low peer acceptance for loneliness and of high loneliness for depression in adolescents. Data were collected from peers for adolescents’ peer acceptance and from adolescents themselves for other variables. Ratings of peers and self-reported survey data were analyzed together from data collected from 294 eighth-grade students from a culturally and ethnically diverse school. Results indicated belongingness was a significant moderator of the influence of peer acceptance on loneliness and of loneliness on depression. This suggests that belongingness is a potentially important buffer against the negative effects of low peer acceptance and high loneliness. Implications for counseling psychologists working with ethnically diverse adolescents are discussed.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.295
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations107
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Counseling PsychologistSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207