Youth, prosociality, and child welfare: an investigation of positive peer influence and youth prosocial behavior in group home care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Only a limited number of studies have investigated the association between positive peer influence and youth prosocial behavior in child welfare. None of such studies has been completed in group home setting for youth. This study aimed to examine if positive peer influence is associated with (or predicts) youth prosocial behavior. The Ontario Looking After Children (OnLAC) database was used for analysis. There were 875 participants (males and females) aged 10 to 17 who were surveyed in group homes in 2010–2011. A full regression analysis found strong association between positive peer influence and youth prosocial behavior. The main predictive effect of gender was observed to be modestly associated with youths’ prosocial behavior as demonstrated by the adjusted and unadjusted main predictive effects (OR = .67 and .63). There was a significant positive peer influence by group home size interaction and its moderating effect was such that positive peer influence significantly predicted youths’ prosocial behaviors in small homes (incremental ORs of 2.00 and 4.49), but not in large homes. Findings show that positive peer influence informs youth prosocial behaviors in group homes.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".