MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2537256980 · doi:10.1515/ijamh-2016-0067

Factors that promote and impede other-sex friendships: a qualitative study of Iranian adolescent girls

2016· article· en· W2537256980 on OpenAlexaff
Nasim Bahrami, Masoumeh Sibmar, William M. Bukowski, AbouAli Vedadhir, Bianca Panarello

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyQualitative researchDevelopmental psychologySex traffickingCriminologySociologyHuman trafficking

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: The aim of this study was to identify factors that promote and impede other-sex (OS) friendships in adolescent girls. METHODS: A qualitative study conducted with 20 adolescent girls recruited in public places in Tehran, Iran. Information was collected through semi-structured interviews and coded via the conventional qualitative content analysis approach. RESULTS: Four factors were identified that appeared to promote entry into OS friendships. These factors include (a) a poor understanding of perceived risks, (b) weak religious beliefs, (c) processes of identity formation, and (d) low self-esteem. In addition, six factors appeared to impede entry into these friendships: (a) self-confidence, (b) prioritizing education, (c) maintaining particular entertainment preferences, (d) awareness of prior unpleasant experiences with boys, (e) having strong religious convictions, and (f) shaming from significant others. CONCLUSION: These findings provide unique insights into the factors that stem from different levels of social complexity, which affect participation in a fundamental form of human experience.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.192
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Adolescent Medicine and HealthSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207