Congruence and discrepancies in mothers’ and adolescents’ reports of the extent of sexual communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers have found that, on average, parents report more frequent parent-adolescent sexual communication than do their adolescents, but they have not considered that this informant discrepancy in perceptions likely does not occur in all families. We examined the proportion of mother-adolescent dyads who showed three patterns of congruence and discrepancy in the extent of sexual communication: Mother > Adolescent, Mother = Adolescent, and Adolescent > Mother. Participants were 254 Canadian adolescents (134 girls, 120 boys; 12–14 years) and their mothers. The analyses showed that, overall, 56% of dyads fell into the Mother = Adolescent group, 35% into the Mother > Adolescent group, and 9% into the Adolescent > Mother group. This was also the pattern for most specific sexual health topics assessed. Discriminant function analysis showed that only adolescents’ perceptions of the quality of communication (sexual and general) separated the groups. These results demonstrate that the most common pattern was for mothers and adolescents to be congruent, not discrepant, in their perceptions of their sexual communication. They also suggest that these patterns of congruence and discrepancy are linked to adolescents’ but not mothers’ perceptions of the quality of their sexual and general communication.
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".