Meaning-Making Processes in Adolescents After Experiencing Parental Divorce
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to explore the meaning-making processes of adolescents who have experienced parental divorce. Methods and Materials: A qualitative research design using a phenomenological approach was employed to capture adolescents’ lived experiences. The study included 24 adolescent participants aged 13 to 18 from various provinces in Canada who had experienced parental divorce within the past five years. Participants were recruited through purposive sampling, and data collection was conducted using semi-structured in-depth interviews. Thematic saturation was achieved by the 24th interview. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis through NVivo software, allowing for the identification of recurring patterns and central themes. Findings: Analysis revealed four major themes: Emotional Navigation, Identity Reconstruction, Relational Shifts, and Meaning Construction. Adolescents initially experienced emotional confusion, sadness, and resentment, but some later developed emotional acceptance and resilience. They reported shifts in identity, including reevaluating family roles, trust, and future expectations. Relationships with parents, siblings, and peers were redefined, often marked by conflict, closeness, or detachment. Adolescents engaged in various cognitive strategies to make sense of the divorce, including narrative building, reframing, and philosophical reflection, which contributed to a renewed sense of self and outlook on future relationships. Conclusion: Adolescents are active agents in processing parental divorce, engaging in complex meaning-making that influences their emotional well-being and developmental trajectory. These findings underscore the need for therapeutic and educational interventions that center adolescents' narratives and support reflective, adaptive meaning-making.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".