The quality of family relationships within and across generations: A social relations analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".