MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040205975 · doi:10.1037/a0020931

A social relations model of observed family negativity and positivity using a genetically informative sample.

2011· article· en· W2040205975 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality and Social Psychology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthEconomic and Social Research CouncilWilliam T. Grant Foundation
KeywordsPsychologyNegativity effectDevelopmental psychologyMultilevel modelPartner effectsSiblingSocial psychologyNegativity biasVariance (accounting)Statistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this study was to investigate individual and relationship influences on expressions of negativity and positivity in families. Parents and adolescents were observed in a round-robin design in a sample of 687 families. Data were analyzed using a multilevel social relations model. In addition, genetic contributions were estimated for actor effects. Children showed higher mean levels of negativity and lower mean levels of positivity as actors than did parents. Mothers were found to express and elicit higher mean levels of positivity and negativity than fathers. Actor effects were much stronger than partner effects, accounting for between 18%-39% of the variance depending on the actor and the outcome. Genetic (35%) and shared environmental (19%) influences explained a substantial proportion of the actor effect variance for negativity. Dyadic reciprocities were lowest in dyads with a high power differential (i.e., parent-child dyads) and highest for dyads with equal power (sibling and marital dyads).

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.325
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.071 · 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