Parenting Style, Locus of Control, and Oral Hygiene in Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to test if variations in oral hygiene levels in adolescents were associated with locus of control and parenting styles after controlling for demographic factors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study sample comprised 237 adolescents aged 12-13 years. The structured questionnaire included demographic characteristics and items about parenting style and locus of control. The Individual Quantitative Plaque % Index (IQPI) and toothbrushing frequency were used as clinical outcome measures. RESULTS: In the bivariate analyses, socioeconomic status (P=0.012), number of children in the family (P=0.003), and frequency of toothbrushing (P=0.001) were related to dental plaque levels. Gender (P<0.001), socioeconomic status (P=0.022), and external locus of control (Spearman rho, -0.144, P=0.027) were statistically significantly associated with toothbrushing frequency. In the multivariate analyses, only socioeconomic status and toothbrushing frequency were statistically significantly related to the IQPI. When toothbrushing frequency as the second outcome variable was used, the IQPI and gender were statistically significant. The association with socioeconomic status did not reach statistical significance (P=0.07). CONCLUSIONS: Only socioeconomic status and toothbrushing frequency explained variation in dental plaque levels among adolescents. The expected relationship among parenting styles, locus of control, and oral hygiene levels was not confirmed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".