Parent-adolescent interaction as related to parental acceptance and family communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate parent-adolescent interaction as it relates to the family communication system and parental acceptance of the adolescent from a systems perspective. The subjects included in the study were 69 male and 108 female Texas high school students and 34 male and 47 female high school students from Western Canada, resulting in a total of 258 subjects. A self-report questionnaire was administered to the adolescents to assess their perception of the three variables under investigation. A stepwise multiple regression analysis was utilized to determine which of thirteen variables predicted toward a positive parent-adolescent interaction. Results indicated family communication to be a highly predictive factor of the quality of parent-adolescent interaction. The regression analysis was also utilized to determine influencing factors on the adolescent's perception of parental acceptance. Communication was again found to be highly predictive of that variable. Results of a Pearson product-moment correlation indicated a strong positive relationship to exist between the two dependent variables, parent-adolescent interaction and parental acceptance of the adolescent. Conclusions drawn from the findings suggest that systems theory may be highly functional in explaining parent-adolescent interaction in North American families. Implications for additional research and intervention strategies were discussed.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".