Creating Versus Negating Togetherness: Perceptual and Emotional Differences in Parent‐Teenager Reported Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective We examine discrepancies between parents' and adolescents' reports of the quantity and the quality , or emotional valence, of time spent together. Background The question of how much time parents spend with children is vital to scholars and families. Although parents' reports of time with children are taken as standard and reliable, assessing different family actors' perspectives on time together is important to consider. Method Using the perspectives of 15–17‐year‐old adolescents and of parents with teenagers aged 15–17 years, we examine reports of parent–teen co‐presence (“in the room with”) and emotions during daily activities. Data are from American Time Use Survey time diaries (2003–2018) and the 2010, 2012, and 2013 Well‐Being Modules. Results There are considerable perceptual discrepancies in the amount of time reported as together. Parents report nearly an hour per day more than teenagers do—with the weekly gap equivalent to about an entire school day. Though the perceptual gap is sizeable, the emotional one is not: both generations experience reported time together as more meaningful, happier, and less stressful than time apart, partly due to the nature of activities and presence of other people. Social statuses, including parental employment and educational attainment, pattern perceptions of time together and well‐being during reported co‐presence. Conclusion Ultimately, generational position and social statuses shape perceptions of co‐presence in the form of “creating” versus “negating” classifications of togetherness.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".