Perceptions of constructive and destructive conflict within and across family subsystems
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
Abstract Family members' (mothers, fathers, siblings) perceptions of the frequency and types of constructive and destructive conflict strategies used within and across the three family subsystems (marital, parent–child, sibling) were investigated. Participants included 60 fifth‐ and sixth‐grade, middle‐class white children, their closest‐in‐age sibling, and both parents. Each family member rated their perceptions of conflict resolution strategies employed in marital, parent–child, and sibling relationships. Overall, family members demonstrated agreement on the frequency and types of conflict within the three family subsystems and generally reported employing similar conflict tactics across different subsystems. Additionally, parent–child conflict strategies were partially linked to both constructive and destructive sibling and marital conflict. These results are best understood in light of both the shared family perspective view and the spillover hypothesis of family dynamics (Margolin et al. , 1996; Minuchin, 1988). Implications for examining conflict strategies within and across subsystems are discussed within the context of recent theory on family functioning. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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