MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2984250412 · doi:10.1177/0192513x19886647

Relationship between Parenting Style, Alexithymia and Aggression in Emerging Adults

2019· article· en· W2984250412 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Agnieszka B. Janik McErlean, Li Xian Crystal Lim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Issues · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaAggressionPsychologyAuthoritarianismParenting stylesToronto Alexithymia ScaleDevelopmental psychologyStyle (visual arts)Clinical psychologyDemocracy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alexithymia has been linked to reduced emotional awareness and increased aggression. One line of evidence suggests that authoritarian parenting contributes to the development of alexithymia. To elucidate the relationship between experienced parenting style, alexithymia and aggression the Parental Authority Questionnaire, the Toronto Alexithymia Scale and the Buss–Perry Aggression Questionnaire were administered to a group of emerging adults. Current findings show a positive relationship between: (i) authoritarian parenting style and alexithymia, (ii) alexithymia and aggression, iii) authoritarian parenting style and aggression. This study also found that paternal authoritarian parenting predicted alexithymia and aggression when controlling for maternal authoritarian style, but not the other way round. In addition, alexithymia mediated the relationship between paternal authoritarian parenting and aggression when controlling for maternal authoritarian style suggesting that elevated alexithymia which is likely to be a consequence of authoritarian parenting, especially when it is practiced by a father, contributes to increased aggression in adulthood.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations27
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family IssuesSame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207