Parent–adolescent conversations about mental health and well-being shaped adolescents’ anxiety/depression during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
= 6.95, 93% biological mothers) from Southern California, United States. Adolescents reported their symptoms of anxiety/depression in spring 2020 (T1) and winter 2020/2021 (T3). Between July 2020 and March 2021 (T2), parent-adolescent dyads engaged in an 8-min audio-recorded conversation about the pandemic. Conversations were coded for adolescent and parent references to MHW (i.e., their contributions to discussing their own or others' mental health and strategies to cope with challenges) and parents' affective climate (i.e., parents' positive and negative emotion talk). Higher parental contribution and lower adolescent contribution to MHW discussions predicted increases in adolescents' anxiety/depression from T1 to T3. Parents' positive emotion talk predicted decreases in adolescents' anxiety/depression over time, and, at increased levels of parents' negative emotion talk, parental control over the MHW discussion predicted increases in adolescents' anxiety/depression. These findings highlight that conversations may be important social processes that contribute to adolescent well-being during times of crisis. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".