SIGNIFICANCE OF RELATIONSHIPS AND PSYCHOSOCIAL ADAPTATION DURING ADOLESCENCE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines associations between different aspects of romantic involvement and psychosocial adaptation during adolescence.901 students (432 boys, 469 girls) aged 12 to 17 years, who have been involved in at least one romantic relationship, answered questionnaires aimed at measuring ten parameters of romantic involvement (interest, age at the time of the first romance, average age of the partners, number of romantic relationships, number of broken hearts, average duration of relationship, duration of a recent, more significant relationship, time spent each week out of the school in this relationship, current romantic status, sexually active or not) and four indices of psychosocial adjustment (performance at school, body image, self-esteem, behavioural problems).The results demonstrate that it is possible to accurately predict poorer performance at school based on stronger romantic involvement, which is more significant for younger adolescents (ages 12 to 14) than for older ones (ages 15 to 17).Body image and self-esteem are positively and significantly related to greater involvement in romantic relationships, and boys differ from girls in terms of self-esteem parameters.Finally, behavioural problems are significantly associated with greater romantic involvement at all ages.The significance of correlation between variables ranges from weak to moderate, depending on age and gender (r ranging between 0.13 and 0.40) and the regression equations account for a generally modest portion of the total variance (6.3% to 11.7%).Differences attributable to age and gender refer to interaction effects concerning only few parameters.The results obtained are discussed in the context of psychosocial development in 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".