Joint actions of parents and adolescents in health conversation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on an action theory approach, of 32 videotaped parent-adolescent conversations about health in two Canadian ethno-cultural groups were analyzed to identify and describe the joint action of parents and adolescents in the health domain. The data include manifest behavior (the conversation), internal processes (recalled thoughts and feelings on viewing the videotape of the conversation), and social meaning. These data were analyzed using the goals, functions, and elements of the conversations. Five categories of joint actions emerged from these data: sharing and exploring information, values, and beliefs about health; negoti-ating and struggling about aspects of the adolescent’s independence; providing and receiv-ing guidance; adjusting to family and home issues; and fostering joint understanding by giving voice to the adolescent. The central question this research addresses is, What are the individual and jointactions in which parents and adolescents engage in conversations about health and health promotion in Indo-Canadian and Euro-Canadian families?1 Using an action theory approach to health promotion (Valach, Young, & Lynam, 1996), we ex-amine the integration of parents ’ and adolescents ’ goals, intentions, behavior, and relationship as they engage in joint health promotion actions. There are three reasons why this question is important. First, it is widely accepted in health policy, health promotion, and research that some health behaviors and life-style choices that influence health status are learned within the context of the family
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".