MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4256208296 · doi:10.24124/2005/bpgub354

Mother-daughter communicative relationships during adolescence and early adulthood.

2005· dissertation· en· W4256208296 on OpenAlexaff
Capreece S. Bowers

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaLibrary and Archives Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDaughterPsychologyConversationDevelopmental psychologyStyle (visual arts)PerceptionSocial psychologyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis examined communication patterns of mothers and daughters of two age groups (adolescents, ages 12 through 16, 'n' = 24; and, young adults, ages 20 through 35, 'n' = 21). Mother-daughter dyads participated in discussions about five hypothetical issues and completed self-report measures of mother-daughter relationship conflict. Conversations were audiotaped and coded for rates of overlaps between speaking turns, simultaneous speech, and successful interruptions. It was hypothesized that there would be greater differences in the conversational styles of adolescent daughters and their mothers as compared to adult daughters and their mothers, and the magnitude of conversational style differences would be positively related to perceptions of relationship conflict. Results partially supported the hypotheses. The predicted differences in mothers and daughters conversation styles as a function of age were found. However, findings did not support the hypothesis that conversational style differences would predict perceptions of relationship conflict.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.344 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207