MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

‘Would Others Think It Is Okay to Express My Feelings?’ Regulation of Anger, Sadness and Physical Pain in Gujarati Children in India

2007· article· en· W1964154839 on OpenAlexaff
Vaishali V. Raval, Tanya S. Martini, Pratiksha H. Raval

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Development · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersSociety for Research in Child Development
KeywordsSadnessPsychologyAngerCollectivismDevelopmental psychologyFeelingSocioemotional selectivity theorySocial psychologyContext (archaeology)Individualism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Despite the recognition of cultural influences on emotional development, very little is known regarding emotion regulation in children from different cultures. This study examined beliefs regarding social acceptability and regulatory behaviors in 80 children (aged five to six years and eight to nine years) from two urban communities (suburban and old city) in Gujarat, India. The children's explicit reasons and their preferred methods of expression and control were also investigated. The results revealed that the children considered others to be less accepting of their expressions of anger and sadness and, in turn, they reported controlling their anger and sadness more than their physical pain. The remarkable congruence between children's beliefs regarding acceptability and reported behaviors was consistent with the notion that cognitions that focus on evaluations of others are particularly salient in guiding socioemotional behavior in a collectivist culture like India. Within‐culture differences were also imperative, indicating that the children in the old city considered others to be less accepting of all of their expressions, and reported controlling these expressions more than the children in the suburban community. These differences are discussed in the context of variations in broader cultural values (i.e., the extent of collectivist orientation and adherence to Hindu ideology) in the two communities.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations56
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial DevelopmentSame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207