Parent–Child Disagreements About Safety During Preadolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Much research has examined how parents manage safety issues for young children, however, little is known about how they do so in the preadolescent years when children's demand for autonomy increases. The current study focused on youth in this transition stage (10-13 years) and examined parent-child disagreements about safety, including how parents learn of these, react to these, and resolve these (Aim 1), if the parent-child relationship or sex of the child impacts these processes (Aim 2), and the nature and reasons why children intentionally keep safety-relevant secrets from their parents (Aim 3). METHODS: A short-term longitudinal design was applied. Parents initially completed questionnaires and, with their child, retrospectively recalled safety disagreements. Over the next month, parents tracked safety disagreements and children tracked secrets they withheld from parents. RESULTS: The findings revealed significant gender differences: Daughters were more likely than sons to spontaneously disclose safety issues to their parents, and parents were more likely to discuss the issue and provide teaching to daughters than sons. Relationship quality emerged as an important factor, particularly for boys: A positive parent-child relationship predicted increased parental teaching in response to a safety-relevant issue for boys only. Children kept secrets from their parents about safety-relevant information in order to maintain their autonomy and independence. CONCLUSION: Parent-child disagreements about safety are influenced by the positive nature of the parent-child relationship and differ for sons and daughters.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".