MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385450224 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.54.1.040

Parental Approval, Active Mediation, and Adolescent Online Social Behavior: Differences by Parent-Child Gender Pairs

2023· article· en· W4385450224 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Angela Keyzers, Jodi Dworkin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Development and Digital Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMediationPsychologyGlobeDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyComputer-assisted web interviewingModerated mediationAssociation (psychology)Political science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adolescents across the globe spend a significant amount of time engaging in online social behavior (OSB). Parents play an important role in influencing adolescent online behavior, however, there is limited understanding about what influences parent’s management of their children’s online behavior. The current study was designed to examine the complex associations between parents’ attitudes about OSB, active parental mediation of adolescent’s online behavior, and adolescent OSB using a diverse U.S. sample. Further, whether these associations are moderated by parent-child gender was examined. Results add insight into how, and under what circumstances fathers and mothers differentially monitor their adolescents’ online behavior and what that means for adolescents’ actual online behavior. Results also provide a preliminary understanding of the role parents’ approval of OSB plays in adolescent OSB and how this association is moderated by parent-child gender. This research helps lay the groundwork for developing strategies targeted toward shaping and/or changing parents’ attitudes about their sons’ and daughters’ OSB in ways that support mediation strategies and responsible adolescent OSB.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.551

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicChild Development and Digital TechnologyFrench-language works237,207