MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976828374 · doi:10.1002/mpr.102

The Twin Inventory of Relationships and Experiences (TIRE): psychometric properties of a measure of the non‐shared and shared environmental experiences of twins and singletons

2001· article· en· W1976828374 on OpenAlexaff
René Carbonneau, Michael Rutter, Emily Simonoff, Judy L. Silberg, Hermine H. Maes, Lindon J. Eaves

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDizygotic twinsPsychologyMeasure (data warehouse)Sample (material)Developmental psychologyTwin studyMonozygotic twinSocial psychologyMedicineHeritabilityComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We examined longitudinally the psychometric properties of the Twin Inventory of Relationships and Experiences (TIRE), an instrument designed to assess non‐shared and shared environmental experiences in twins and siblings. A community sample of 1,117 pairs of like‐sex monozygotic and dizygotic twins, aged eight to 16, and their parents, was used. Results indicated that the TIRE provided constructs that are consistent across informants, gender and time. These dimensions showed good longitudinal stability within raters, and low to moderate inter‐rater agreement; the results are consistent with those of other studies using different instruments to assess family environment. It is concluded that the TIRE may be used to assess dimensions of the non‐shared environment of twins and siblings and their influence on children's development. Copyright © 2001 Whurr Publishers Ltd.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.268 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations10
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Methods in Psychiatric ResearchSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207