Can Supportive Siblings Protect against the Risk that Stress from Feelings of Alienation with Parents and Peers Poses to Mental Health in Emerging Adulthood?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feelings of alienation with parents and peers can lead to psychological distress, possibly because such feelings are stressful. Supportive siblings are known to foster mental health in youth, but research in emerging adulthood is limited. We hypothesized supportive sibling climate as a protective factor in the risks that stress from parent and peer alienation poses to psychological distress among emerging adults. A proposed moderated-mediation model was tested, across three samples, using latent moderated mediation structural equation modeling. Results indicated that parental and peer alienation were associated with more psychological distress, and stress partially mediated the link between parental (but not peer) alienation and psychological distress in two samples. However, a supportive sibling climate was not protective as it did not moderate the links among alienation, stress, and psychological distress. In sum, siblings seem beneficial, but perhaps it is not sufficient to protect emerging adults’ mental health against stress from parent and peer alienation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".