The Social Ecology of Parental Monitoring: Parent–Child Dynamics in a High‐Risk Peruvian Neighborhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While parental monitoring is understood to protect adolescents from engaging in risk behaviors, little is known about how the family dynamics involved in parental monitoring differ across sociocultural contexts. We sought to gain an in-depth understanding of parent-child relationship dynamics and parental knowledge of adolescents' activities in an urban Peruvian neighborhood with high levels of crime and adolescent substance use. We conducted 15 in-depth interviews and two focus groups with adolescents and 12 in-depth interviews with mothers sampled from a secondary school in Callao, Peru. Our findings emphasize the importance of parent-child confianza (trust) as a foundation for parental awareness of adolescents' lives and activities. Participants in our sample characterized confianza as encouraging adolescent disclosure and shaping how parental solicitation and rules were interpreted by adolescents. Participants described how confianza was rooted in features of the parent-child relationship, including shared parent-child time, parental affection, adolescent perceptions of parents' ability to give good advice, and awareness of how parents would react to delicate topics. Participants linked these family dynamics, in turn, to economic hardship, parental feelings of sacrifice and stress, perceptions of neighborhood risk, and gender norms limiting fathers' involvement in caregiving. Results have implications for the planning and adaptation of family-based prevention programs for use in high-risk contexts in Latin America.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".