Conflicts with Friends and Romantic Partners: Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses of the Experiences of Girls in Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Conflicts are common in adolescent friendships and romantic relationships. The ways girls in care navigate conflicts in close relationships have implications for their resilience, since their family relationships are compromised. We employed qualitative and quantitative approaches to explore the conflicts in the friend and romantic relationships of 37 girls in care. They completed an interview about the conflicts with their best friend and boyfriend and a measure on the positive and negative quality of the friendship and romantic relationship within which the conflicts took place. Thematic analysis indicated the girls experienced more intense and volatile conflicts with their boyfriend than best friend. However, the intensity of these conflicts was mitigated by their positive perceptions in their quantitative reports. Despite conflicts, the girls reported significantly higher levels of positive than negative relationship quality within their romantic relationships and similar levels of negative quality between the two relationships. Findings highlight the girls' struggles with their romantic relationship compared to their friendship and especially their attempts to interpret conflict within a more global assessment of relationship quality. The findings provide a nuanced understanding of the girls' relational patterns, which can be used to inform interventions to support their development of healthy relationships.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".