Differences between and Characteristics of University Students’ and Their Parents’ Perceptions of Family Functioning in Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to clarify the differences between and characteristics of university students’ and their parents’ perceptions of family functioning. We conducted an internet survey involving university students and their parents, which consisted of a questionnaire about attributes and a family functioning scale (Survey of Family Environment; SFE). The responses were obtained from 26 pairs of university students and their parents. There were no significant differences in the Overall Satisfaction Score and the Overall Importance Score of the SFE between university students and their parents. Among the satisfaction scores for individual items (item-SSs), scores for “Family’s going on leisure outings together,” “Family’s being friendly to the global environment” and “Managing family members’ diet” in parents were significantly higher than the scores for the respective items in university students. The significant differences in the scores of some items suggest that the differences in the perceptions of overall family functioning between university students and their parents can be ignored in settings where only overall family functioning is evaluated. However, it is necessary to consider the data on all family members in addition to the SFE score in family nursing practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".