Pathways from parenting practices to adolescent suicidality: Evidence on the role of emotional and behavioral symptoms from a prospective cohort of Canadian children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate longitudinal relationships between parenting practices in childhood and adolescent suicidality, and assess the mediating role of emotional and behavioral symptoms. METHODS: Data were drawn from the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, a Canadian population-based longitudinal cohort study. The sample included 9,490 children aged 10-11 who were followed up biennially to ages 14-15. Parents reported their positive and punitive parenting practices when children were 10-11. Adolescents self-reported symptoms of depression/anxiety, hyperactivity, conduct disorder, and social aggression at 12-13, and past-year suicidal ideation and suicide attempts at 14-15. RESULTS: The inverse associations between positive parenting at 10-11 and suicidal behaviors at 14-15 were significantly mediated by symptoms of hyperactivity, conduct disorder, and social aggression at 12-13. Direct relationships between punitive parenting and suicidal behaviors were observed. These associations were significantly mediated by hyperactivity and, among boys only, by conduct disorder and social aggression. The association between punitive parenting and suicide attempt was additionally mediated by depression/anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Parenting in childhood may be associated with adolescent suicidality both directly and indirectly through emotional and behavioral symptoms. Interventions aimed at reducing the use of harsh disciplinary strategies and promoting positive parent-child interactions may reduce the burden of adolescent suicidality.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".