MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156076734 · doi:10.1177/002214650604700405

Supportive Parenting Moderates the Effect of Discrimination upon Anger, Hostile View of Relationships, and Violence among African American Boys

2006· article· en· W2156076734 on OpenAlexaff
Ronald L. Simons, Leslie Gordon Simons, Callie H. Burt, Holli Drummund, Eric Stewart, Gene H. Brody, Frederick X. Gibbons, Carolyn E. Cutrona

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health and Social Behavior · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Dynamics and Relationships
Canadian institutionsChild, Adolescent and Family Mental Health
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthU.S. Public Health Service
KeywordsAngerPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyHostilityAggressionSocial psychologyHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlClinical psychologyMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies have shown that exposure to discrimination increases the probability that African American adolescents will engage in delinquent behavior, especially acts of violence. The present study extended this research by examining the extent to which supportive parenting buffers a youth from these deleterious consequences of discrimination. Analyses based upon two waves of data from a sample of 332 African American adolescent males and their caretakers supported this hypothesis. Further the results indicated that there are two avenues whereby supportive parenting reduces the probability that discrimination will lead to violence. First, supportive parenting decreases the chances that discrimination will lead to anger and a hostile view of relationships. Second, supportive parenting lowers the risk that anger or a hostile view of relationships, when they develop, will result in violence.

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)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations189
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health and Social BehaviorSame topicFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207