MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3019453348 · doi:10.1177/0272431620912484

Congruence and Incongruence in Father, Mother, and Adolescent Reports of Parental Monitoring: Examining the Links With Antisocial Behaviors

2020· article· en· W3019453348 on OpenAlexafffund
Marie-Agnès Tremblay Pouliot, François Poulin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Early Adolescence · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyPerceptionParental controlParental monitoringCongruence (geometry)Social psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the level of congruence and incongruence between fathers’, mothers’, and adolescents’ perceptions of parental monitoring in relation to the adolescents’ antisocial behaviors. A sample of 163 father-mother-adolescent triads (59.5% girls; [Formula: see text] age = 12.35) filled out separate questionnaires assessing the dimensions of parental monitoring (i.e., parental knowledge, adolescent self-disclosure, parental control, and parental solicitation) and the adolescents also reported on the frequency of their antisocial behaviors. Polynomial regression analyses revealed that the higher the level of congruence between the father’s and/or mother’s and adolescent’s perceptions, the less the adolescent tended to present antisocial behaviors. Some results differed according to the parents’ gender. Incongruence between mothers’ and adolescents’ perceptions of parental knowledge was associated with higher levels of antisocial behaviors, whereas congruence between fathers’ and adolescents’ perceptions of parental knowledge showed a nonlinear relationship with these behaviors. These results shed light on how parental monitoring contributes to adolescent functioning.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Early AdolescenceSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207