MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133032857

Features of parent-adolescent conflict in Asian-Canadian and Anglo-Canadian families

2003· dissertation· W7133032857 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alisa N. Almas

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2003
Typedissertation
Language
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutonomyDominance (genetics)Perspective (graphical)Coding (social sciences)PerceptionCultural diversityParenting styles
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Asian-Canadian and Anglo-Canadian adolescents were interviewed about disagreements between themselves and their mothers in order to examine cultural differences in features of parent-adolescent conflict. Adolescents' goals during these disagreements were assessed using a coding scheme developed by Lundell et al. (2003). Asian-Canadian adolescents reported more autonomy goals and fewer dominance goals than Anglo-Canadian adolescents. Maternal perspective-taking and three forms of maternal monitoring behaviors were also assessed from the perspective of the adolescent. Asian-Canadian adolescents reported more parental control, a form of monitoring, than Anglo-Canadian adolescents. For Anglo-Canadian adolescents, there was a positive correlation between maternal perspective-taking and both parental solicitation and child disclosure (two forms of monitoring). For Asian-Canadian adolescents, parental solicitation was positively correlated with dominance goals and negatively with emotional support goals. These findings provide insight into the ways cultural values influence mothers' and adolescents' perceptions and behaviors during conflict interactions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development→French-language works237,207→