Parenting Styles and Self-Esteem: A Study of Lebanese Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed at identifying the prevailing parenting styles in the Bekaa region- (Lebanon) from adolescents’ perspective. In addition, it aimed at detecting the adolescents’ self-esteem levels, and the relationships between parenting styles and adolescents’ self-esteem. Approach/Methodology/Design: A purposeful sample of 728 students completed the study questionnaire. The questionnaire was adapted from previous studies and its validity and reliability were established. The study followed the descriptive analytical approach for the purpose of data collection and data analysis. Findings: The results showed that the prevailing parenting style as perceived by adolescents in Bekaa is the authoritative style (88%). Another finding was that 78.3% of the adolescents have normal levels of self-esteem. Moreover, Pearson’s r showed a moderate, positive and significant correlation between self-esteem and authoritative parenting style and a weak, negative correlation between self-esteem and both authoritarian and permissive parenting styles. Linear regression analysis indicated that the three parenting styles (authoritarian, authoritative and permissive) and father's educational level are the predictors of self-esteem. Originality/value: The value of this study lies in serving the community by highlighting some points that play an important role in shaping and forming the personality of our children who, in turn, will be active members of our society.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".