MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387220758 · doi:10.5539/ass.v19n5p37

A Case Study on the Influence of Parental Psychological Control on Anxiety in College Students

2023· article· en· W4387220758 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chenye Jiang, Yihan Song

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicStudent Stress and Coping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyMental healthPsychologyControl (management)Psychological healthClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, incidents such as jumping off buildings caused by mental health issues among college students have been reported, which is heartbreaking. College students are the talent reserve for various national undertakings and the future pillars of the country. If college students experience widespread psychological problems such as anxiety, it will have a negative impact on the country. Through analyzing existing data, we found that a considerable number of college students believe that an important factor causing psychological problems is family issues, with parental psychological control being the main issue. This study uses case analysis as the starting point to explore the major culprit of college students' psychological problems - anxiety, as well as the underlying family issues. The objective of the study is to investigate the family causes behind anxiety among college students, in order to better address their mental health issues. The research results indicate that strong psychological control by parents, especially in families, can easily lead to parent-child conflicts and deepen the spread of anxiety among college students.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.378 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicStudent Stress and CopingFrench-language works237,207