Parent‐adolescent conflict processes and their measurement: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Conflicts are frequently incorporated into research on parent‐adolescent relationships. However, empirical research has inconsistently used “parent‐adolescent conflict” as a broad and often singular term rather than processes involving a range of constructs. To understand the balance of attention to the constructs involved in parent‐adolescent conflicts, we conducted a systematic review of measures that were reported in peer‐reviewed journal articles between January 1, 1970 and January 31, 2021, across several disciplines. The initial search identified 17,036 references; after removing duplicates, excluding studies based on stated criteria, and adding 22 articles from reference lists, 467 articles were retained, and 568 measures were extracted from articles. Two types of content analysis (directed and conventional) were used to organize measures into categories. Findings reveal that conflict frequency, intensity, and quality of interactions are most often used while initiation and duration tend to be overlooked. Uneven coverage may generate biases in understanding parent‐adolescent conflict processes.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".