Examining the association between parenting and psychosomatic problems: self-esteem as a mediator across ages in early adolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Supportive parenting is known to protect against psychosomatic manifestations of distress, yet the mechanisms through which this association operates are less clear. The present study evaluates children’s self-esteem as a mediator, partially explaining the association between parent–child relationship quality and psychosomatic problems from late childhood to mid-adolescence. Results from a large, nationally-representative Canadian sample indicated that self-esteem partially mediated these associations, and self-esteem accounted for more shared variance between parent–child relationship quality and psychosomatic problems among younger children. Among older children, shared variance with self-esteem explained a smaller portion of this association, but the remaining direct effect of parent–child relationship on psychosomatic problems was larger. These findings suggest that supportive parents protect against psychosomatic problems, and that they do so by promoting self-esteem for younger children and through other mechanisms as children age. Results are discussed in the context of attachment theory and age-related trends in self-esteem development.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".