The Influence of Social Relationships on Conduct Problems in School Context - Does School Engagement Matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been an increase in the prevalence of problem behavior during adolescence over the last decades. Thereby, studies have found that social bonds and relationships as well as school engagement as a form of connectedness play an important protective role. However, less is know whether school engagement is as a potential mediator in the association of social relationships with peers and teachers and conduct problems. The current study examined this interplay in a large non-clinical sample of students (N= 1.088; MAge= 13.7 SD=0.53 at T1; N= 845; Mage = 15.32, SD = .49 at T2) in secondary schools in Brandenburg, Germany. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was used to test the mediating effect from school engagement in the association between students’ social relationships in early adolescence and conduct problems in middle adolescence. The results show that school engagement function as full mediator in the association of both student-student relationships and teacher-student relationships at T1 and conduct problems at T2. This highlights that fostering school engagement in early adolescence might be an essential starting point for prevention and intervention strategies of conduct problems in middle adolescence.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".