Adolescent Substance Use With Friends:\nModerating and Mediating Effects of Parental Monitoring\nand Peer Activity Contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of using substances with friends on future individual use was examined in the context of parental monitoring rules and the ecology of peer activities. A 1-year longitudinal study design included a combined sample of North Italian and French Canadian adolescents (N = 285, 53% girls, M = 14.25 years). Data analyses were conducted using structural equation modeling and multiple regression analyses. As expected, the covariation between parental monitoring and adolescent substance use was mediated by co-use with friends. Moreover, the relation between substance use with friends and individual substance use was moderated by parental monitoring rules and the peer activity context. Specifically, the relation between substance co-use with friends and individual substance use was stronger when the level of parental monitoring rules was low and when friends spent their time together primarily in unstructured contexts such as on the street or in park settings. These findings underline the importance of adults’ use of rules to monitor adolescents prone to substance use, and the role of context in facilitating or reducing peer influence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".