MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117458036 · doi:10.51380/gujr-41-04-06

PARENT-CHILD COMMUNICATION AND FRIENDSHIP: PREDICTORS OF TRUANT BEHAVIOR IN ADOLESCENTS

2025· article· en· W7117458036 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueGomal University Journal of Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Substance Use and School Attendance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTruancyFriendshipNonprobability samplingInterpersonal relationshipSample (material)Interpersonal communication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study aimed to investigate the relationship between parent-child communication, friendship functions & truancy among adolescents. It was hypothesized that there is likely to be relationship between parent-child communication, friendship functions, and truancy. Furthermore, the parent-child communication and friendship function will likely predict the truancy in adolescents. In this regard, to conduct this study, correlational research design and purposive sampling technique were used to recruit the sample of (N= 300) school and college students in the age range 13-19 years. For this purpose, the Parent-Child Communication Scale, McGill Friendship Questionnaire–FF and Truancy Questionnaire were used for the study. The results discovered significant positive relationship between parent-child communication, truancy and also amid friendship functions and truancy in the adolescents. Furthermore, parent-child communication and friendship functions positively predicted truancy in adolescents. The results of study provide significant information in extracting the desired information, reching conclusion and making suitable decisions about the research issues underconsiderations. The findings can increase parents' awareness regarding importance of communication with their children to reduce truancy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGomal University Journal of ResearchSame topicYouth Substance Use and School AttendanceFrench-language works237,207