The Relationship between Perceived Parenting Styles and Loneliness in Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between perceived parenting styles with loneliness in single students of Islamic Azad University of Ahvaz. This is a correlation research. The statistical population included all single students of Islamic Azad University of Ahvaz (12 thousand students) in the year 2014 -2015. This is a convenience sampling type. A total of 200 students are selected as subjects. The research tools include perception of Parenting Styles Questionnaires (PAQ) and the UCLA loneliness. Descriptive statistics such as frequency, percentage, mean, standard deviation, and inferential statistics including Pearson correlation coefficient, multiple regression, univariate and multivariate variance (MANOVA) analysis, Schaeffer test and Cronbach’s alpha method are used in order to analyze the data. The results of correlation coefficient showed that there is negative and significant relationship (r=0.05) between perceived authoritative parenting styles and loneliness and there is positive and significant (r=0.18) between perceived permissive parenting styles and loneliness. Also, there is a positive and significant relationship between perceived authoritative parenting styles and loneliness (0.15). In sum, it can be found from this research that authoritative parenting style plays an important role in non-lonely children.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".