MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035622324 · doi:10.1037//0893-3200.15.4.688

Effects of interpersonal control, perspective taking, and attributions on older mothers' and adult daughters' satisfaction with their helping relationships.

2001· article· en· W2035622324 on OpenAlexaff
Tanya S. Martini, Joan E. Grusec, Silvia C. Bernardini

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Psychology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAttributionFeelingDyadInterpersonal communicationPerspective (graphical)Interpersonal relationshipSocial psychologyDaughterDevelopmental psychologyAffect (linguistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Older mother-adult daughter dyads (N = 44) were interviewed separately about 3 variables hypothesized to affect satisfaction with the help provided to mothers by their daughters: feelings of interpersonal control, perspective-taking abilities, and attributions made about the self and other dyad member during positive and negative helping interactions. The most important predictors of partner satisfaction were mothers' and daughters' ability to accurately perceive the partner's feelings about the helping relationship and their feelings of interpersonal control. The most salient predictors of mothers' and daughters' own satisfaction were the attributions they made about the partner during a negative helping situation and their feelings of interpersonal control. These findings underscore the importance of considering interpersonal psychological variables in research concerned with helping relationships in later life.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.297 · 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
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

Citations27
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family PsychologySame topicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingFrench-language works237,207