CANADIAN EARLY ADOLESCENTS’ SELF-DISCLOSURE TO SIBLINGS AND BEST FRIENDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study addressed children's reports of self-disclosures to their siblings and best friends in early adolescence. Twenty-four boys and 22 girls in Grade 4 (<em>M </em>age = 9.48,<em> SD </em>= .59) and 19 boys and 28 girls in Grade 6 (<em>M</em> age = 11.15 years, <em>SD</em> = .55) were interviewed regarding disclosures to siblings and friends. They also completed the Sibling Relationship Questionaire (Furman &amp; Buhrmester, 1985b) and the Friendship Activity Questionaire (Bukowski, Hoza, &amp; Boivin, 1994) to rate the quality of each relationship. Participants were more likely to disclose peer, academic, and shared interest issues to friends than siblings. Boys reported discussing shared interests more frequently with both siblings and friends. Respondents who disclosed to their siblings also reported higher warmth, rivalry, and greater conflict in their sibling relationship. Early adolescents who did not disclose to their friends reported greater friendship conflict. Findingds are discussed in light of recent theory and empirical literature.
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) | 0.000 | 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".