Independence and support: Making parent/school relationships work for teenage students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study was designed to explore the role teenage students play in shaping the relationship their parents/guardians have with their high school. It examines some of the benefits and barriers to parental involvement and looks at how students can control parental access to information from the school. The site is a rural dual track (French Immersion and English) high school of 800 students situated in Prince Edward Island, Canada. The data is collected from a randomly distributed survey and subsequent interviews. There were 136 surveys completed by students in grades 10–12 as well as four interviews (conducted after the survey) with students wishing to further discuss the subject of parental involvement. The survey consisted of 14 questions both open and closed-ended and the interviews were made up of four open-ended questions. The questions on both instruments were similar and the responses were consistent between the surveys and the interview data. Through the data analysis it was discovered that the students did play a role in shaping the amount of parental involvement and the access to information that parents have. Some of the major factors governing the desire for teens to keep information from their parents centre around a desire for independence, privacy, and space.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".