Friendship Social Support Networks of African Americans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Friends are crucial for companionship, sharing personal thoughts and feelings, and are positively associated with psychological well-being and mental health. This is one of the first studies to provide an in-depth investigation of social support networks of African American friendship. Using a nationally representative sample of African American adults drawn from the National Survey of American Life, this study investigated sociodemographic correlates, as well as expanded information on marital status and life circumstances of friendships. Additionally, we examined the interrelationships among several aspects of friendship. The findings indicate that, apart from income and region, all other correlates (i.e., age, gender, education, marital status, material hardship, military service, incarceration history, parental status, and urbanicity) were significantly associated with involvement in friendship support networks (i.e., subjective friendship closeness, frequency of contact with friends, frequency of receiving support from friends, and frequency of providing support to friends). Moreover, subjective closeness to friends was positively associated with friend contact, and both subjective closeness to and contact with friends were positively associated with supportive exchanges with friends. These findings indicate the importance of understanding the life circumstances and contexts within which friendships occur and the need for much more quantitative and qualitative research on African American friendships.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".