Explorations into adolescents' perceived maturity with parents and peers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many social relationships have the potential to influence perceived maturity. Previous research has not examined the possibility of distinct perceptions emerging from different relationships. This initial investigation focuses on parents and peers as the two groups with which social perceptions of maturity might vary. This investigation also addresses potential changes in perceived maturity over time, and its association with chronological age and gender of the adolescent. Additionally, Moffitt’s (1993) developmental taxonomy and an alternative model for adolescents’ association with deviant peers are tested. Three hundred and twenty six adolescents (129 boys, 197 girls) from a high school in a large urban city in western Canada participated in this study. Students ranged from 12 to 17 years of age and were in grades 8 through 11 at the first wave of data collection. Two waves of data, one year apart, were used. Analyses found support for a differentiation between perceived maturity with parents and peers for about 40% of participants. Changes in perceived maturity over a one-year period were also found for parents (53%) and for peers (52%). Results indicated that there was no statistically significant relationship between chronological age or gender of the adolescent and perceived maturity. Neither Moffitt’s (1993) model nor the alternative model was supported. Implications for the differences in perceived maturity between parents and peers as well as changes in perceived maturity 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".