MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411436818 · doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2025.101829

Family functioning and youth adjustment: The role of sibling and friend security

2025· article· en· W4411436818 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan J. Persram, Melissa Commisso, William M. Bukowski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Developmental Psychology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySiblingDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study examined the extent to which specific facets of family functioning were associated with adolescents' internalizing difficulties and the moderating effect of relationship security with a sibling and a best friend. This two-wave longitudinal study included 335 adolescents ( M = 10.86, SD = 0.73) who completed a series of questionnaires on sibling and best friend security, as well as internalizing difficulties. Parents completed a measure on family functioning, which included two balanced scales (i.e., cohesion, flexibility) and four unbalanced scales (i.e., chaos, rigidity, enmeshment, disengagement). Results indicated that family chaos at T1 predicted increased depressed affect at T2. Additionally, cohesion predicted less depressed affect when sibling security was high. Chaos predicted greater depressed affect when friendship security was low or average. These findings provide support for the need to consider the specific familial and relational experiences that account for adolescents' social and emotional well-being.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Developmental PsychologySame topicCognitive Abilities and TestingFrench-language works237,207