The interplay between pubertal timing, parental control and adolescent problem behaviors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was undertaken to investigate the interplay between pubertal timing, parental control, and problem behaviors. More specifically, this study examined the relationships between (a) pubertal timing and problem behaviors; and (b) parental control and problem behaviors. The link between pubertal timing and parental control was also explored to determine whether this relationship itself influences behavioral outcomes. A total of 267 (93 male, 167 female) students, whose ages ranged from 9 to 16 years participated in the study. Regarding pubertal timing, the findings indicated that pubertal timing was associated with externalizing problem behaviors; however, there was no significant relationship between pubertal timing and internalizing problem behaviors. This suggests that pubertal timing may not be a critical a variable in understanding individual differences in all kinds of problem behavior. Regarding parental control, it was found that both maternal and paternal psychological control predicted adolescent internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors, even after controlling for the effects of behavioral control. The results suggested that the use of behavioral control is differentially related to developmental outcomes, depending on the domain in which it is utilized. Furthermore, the findings highlighted the value of fathers in fostering optimal adolescent development. Finally, the combined influence of pubertal timing and parental control on adolescent problem behaviors was not found to be significant. Several directions for future research are discussed in light of these findings.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".