Sibling relationship quality moderates the associations between parental interventions and siblings’ independent conflict strategies and outcomes.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study extends research on sibling conflict strategies and outcomes by examining unique and interactive associations with age, relative birth order, sibling relationship quality, and caregivers' interventions into conflict. Each of 62 sibling dyads (older sibling mean age = 8.39 years; younger sibling mean age = 6.06 years) discussed 1 recurring conflict alone (dyadic negotiation) and a 2nd conflict with their primary parental caregiver (triadic negotiation). Negotiations were coded for children's conflict strategies, outcomes, and caregiver interventions; each family member provided ratings of sibling relationship quality. Results revealed that age was associated with siblings' constructive strategies, particularly in the dyadic negotiation. With age controlled, younger siblings referred more frequently to their own perspective. Caregivers' future orientation in the triadic negotiation was associated with children's future orientation in the dyadic negotiation; however, this association was most evident when sibling relationship quality was high. Similarly, caregivers' past orientation was positively associated with dyadic compromise, especially when relationship quality was high. Results reveal the value of simultaneously considering associations among parental, affective, and developmental correlates of sibling conflict strategies.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it