PARENTAL LEGITIMACY, PROCEDURAL JUSTICE, AND COMPLIANCE WITH PARENTAL RULES AMONG BRAZILIAN PREADOLESCENTS
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to capture a snapshot of the lives of Brazilian preadolescents and gain a deeper understanding of the variables that influence compliance with parental rules. This analysis draws from the São Paulo Legal Socialization Study, a cohort study (<em>N</em> = 800; age = 11 years) from public and private schools. Descriptive statistics provide a perspective on normative Brazilian parenting practices and preadolescents’ perceptions of parental legitimacy across multiple domains. Hierarchical linear modeling revealed that procedural justice, global legitimacy, issue-specific legitimacy, and disciplinary techniques all significantly predicted compliance across issues and between preadolescents. Parents who used constructive disciplinary practices paired with procedural justice practices were more likely to be perceived as legitimate authorities and to have their preadolescent children comply with their rules. Our findings broaden the literature on constructive parenting practices in preadolescence, and allow for greater generalizability of current Western research to a diverse metropolitan setting in Brazil.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it