Changes in best friendship quality between adolescence and emerging adulthood: Considering the role of romantic involvement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Changes in best friendship quality during adolescence coincide with the emergence of romantic relationships. This study aimed to examine the extent to which changes in friendship quality (intimacy, conflict, emotional support) between the ages of 16 and 22 varied according to four romantic involvement patterns (Late, Sporadic, Long-Term, Frequent) followed during this period. Gender was also included as a moderator. Participants ( n = 281; 61% girls) identified their romantic partners and reported on the quality of their relationship with their best friend each year. A series of multilevel growth curve models revealed that participants in the Late involvement group reported an increase in conflict with their best friend during this period; those in the Sporadic involvement and Frequent involvement groups reported increases in intimacy; and youths in the Long-Term involvement group reported no changes in friendship intimacy, conflict, or emotional support over time. Thus, among youths who reported changes in best friendship quality between adolescence and emerging adulthood, the observed changes appeared to vary according to the romantic involvement patterns followed during this period.
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 | 0.000 | 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".