A Predictive Study of Psychological Capital and Its Relationship with Demographics Factors, Attachment Styles, Peer Relations, and Quality of Friendship among Adolescents in Islamabad
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objecives. The aim of the study was to explore the relationship between attachment styles, friendship quality and psychological capital in adolescents. Moreover, different demographics variables like age, birth order, number of siblings, number of close friends, time spent with friends were also studied along the study variables. Method. A sample of 300 students (aged 12-20) were selected belonging to different schools and colleges in Islamabad. Relationship Questionnaire (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), Inventory of Parent and Peer attachment (Armesdon & Greenberg, 1987), McGill Friendship Questionnaire- Friendship Functions (Mendelson & Aboud, 2014) and Psychological Capital Scale (Afzal, 2013) were employed to measure the research variables. Results. Results of the study showed that Peer attachment, secure attachment style, fearful attachment style, age and number of close friends significantly predict psychological capital. Furthermore, friendship quality, secure attachment style, fearful attachment style, age, no of close friends significantly predict psychological capital. correlation analysis showed that peer attachment, friendship quality and psychological capital have significant positive relationship with for psychological capital and peer attachment, for psychological capital and friendship quality and for peer attachment and friendship quality. Results show that there is a statistically significant difference on attachment styles for psychological capital, peer attachment and friendship quality. However, hope showed non-significant difference. Keywords. Attachment styles, friendship quality, psychological capital, adolescents
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".