MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999239606 · doi:10.1080/01650250444000351

The quality of family relationships within and across generations: A social relations analysis

2004· article· en· W1999239606 on OpenAlexaff
Hildy Ross, Nancy L. Stein, Tom Trabasso, Erik Z. Woody, Michael G. Ross

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Behavioral Development · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyReciprocity (cultural anthropology)SiblingDevelopmental psychologySibling relationshipFamily relationshipInterpersonal relationshipSocial relationshipSocial psychologyPartner effectsSocial relationQuality (philosophy)Consistency (knowledge bases)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parents and two children (average ages: 81/2 and 51/2 years) in 76 families each appraised the quality of their relationships with one another. Family members described generally positive relationships, both from their own perspectives (e.g., “I am often nice to my mother”) and from the perspectives of their relationship partners (e.g., “My mother is often nice to me”). Sibling relationships were rated less positively than other family relationships. The Social Relations Model was utilised to examine the patterning of family relationships. Actor effects, indicating consistent relationship qualities for each individual family member, were found, especially for ratings of self. Partner effects, indicating consistency in relationships as assessed by others in the family, were present for ratings of the children as relationship partners. Relationship effects were pervasive, indicating that specific family relationships had distinct qualities. Participants’ own ratings suggested that reciprocity would characterise all family relationships, in that strong correlations were found between each person’s rating of self and other, but only the marital and the sibling relationship evidenced relational reciprocity, as assessed by correlations between relationship effects found for relationship partners.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.358 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations34
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Behavioral DevelopmentSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207