MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3044032964 · doi:10.1177/0192513x20942807

Direct and Indirect Associations of Food Insecurity, Adolescent–Parent Relationship, and Adolescent Future Orientation

2020· article· en· W3044032964 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Rainier Masa, Claire Bates, Gina Chowa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Issues · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological and Temporal Perspectives Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMastercard Foundation
KeywordsStructural equation modelingFood insecurityPsychologyPsychological interventionIndirect effectFuture orientationDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyEnvironmental healthFood securityPolitical scienceMedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This cross-sectional study on Ghanaian adolescents examined the direct and indirect associations of food insecurity, parent–adolescent relationship, and adolescent future orientation. We used structural equation modeling to examine reliability and validity of our latent constructs and our hypothesized direct and indirect relationships. Results indicated adequate fit of our measurement and structural models with the data. Results also showed a significant direct and indirect effect of food insecurity. Food insecurity was directly associated with parental connection, orientation toward success, and uncertainty about the future. Food insecurity was also indirectly associated with orientation toward success and uncertainty about the future, via parental connection. Further, higher levels of parental connection were directly associated with higher levels of orientation toward success and with lower levels of uncertainty about the future. Understanding the direct and indirect effect of food insecurity is important for the design of appropriate interventions that promote holistic and positive adolescent development.

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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family IssuesSame topicPsychological and Temporal Perspectives ResearchFrench-language works237,207