MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388421090 · doi:10.1111/bjdp.12466

Maternal beliefs about the benefits and costs of child and adolescent friendship

2023· article· en· W4388421090 on OpenAlexaff
Jenna P. Weingarten, Julie C. Bowker, Robert J. Coplan, Kenneth H. Rubin

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Developmental Psychology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFriendshipDevelopmental psychologyPsychologyEthnic groupSet (abstract data type)CognitionSocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The goals of this study were to examine maternal beliefs about the primary benefits and costs of their children's time spent with friends, and to explore child age and gender differences in these beliefs. Participants were N = 512 mothers ( M childage = 10.18 years; 11% ethnic minority). Open‐ended responses to questions about the benefits and costs were coded and analysed, with results indicating that mothers consider opportunities for social skills and social‐cognitive development a primary benefit of spending time with friends. Negative friend influence was the most commonly cited cost of friendship. Child age was associated with a number of maternal beliefs (e.g., mothers of adolescents were more likely than mothers of young children to report intimacy as a benefit ) , but child gender was not. Findings highlight the importance of considering child age in studies of maternal beliefs about friendship and set the stage for future research in this area.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Developmental PsychologySame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207