MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801498449 · doi:10.29173/cjfy29341

Adolescent Stress: Causes, Consequences, and Communication as an Interventional Model

2018· article· en· W2801498449 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ian G. Coward

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Family and Youth / Le Journal Canadien de Famille et de la Jeunesse · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyStressorDisengagement theoryFeelingVariety (cybernetics)AnxietyIntervention (counseling)Stress (linguistics)Social psychologyDevelopmental psychologyApplied psychologyClinical psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adolescents are encountering a greater quantity, variety, and intensity of stress than any previous generation. This study analyses data from my own experience, pop culture, and statistics, as well as videos produced by artists and professionals. The purpose was to identify the primary stressors impacting junior high school students’ emotional well-being, examine how these stressors are affecting them socially and academically, and explore what role having someone to talk to might have in helping to reduce their stress levels. The study found that parents, peers, academics, and physical and psychological concerns are the greatest sources of stress for this particular age group. Anxiety, depression, and withdrawal/disengagement are the most common emotional effects, and communicating feelings to a trusted adult can mitigate some of these difficulties. These findings suggest that helping students cope with personal stress requires that it become a priority, teachers be provided with adequate training, and time and space be made available for students to discuss their problems. As a result, an intervention model focusing on brief, solution-focused interactions is proposed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Family and Youth / Le Journal Canadien de Famille et de la JeunesseSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207