Sibship Size, Sibling Cognitive Sensitivity, and Children’s Receptive Vocabulary
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
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the current study was to examine the relationship between sibship size and children's vocabulary as a function of quality of sibling interactions. It was hypothesized that coming from a larger sibship (ie, 3+ children) would be related to lower receptive vocabulary in children. However, we expected this association to be moderated by the level of cognitive sensitivity shown by children's next-in-age older siblings. METHODS: Data on 385 children (mean age = 3.15 years) and their next-in-age older siblings (mean age = 5.57 years) were collected and included demographic questionnaires, direct testing of children's receptive vocabulary, and videos of mother-child and sibling interactions. Sibling dyads were taped engaging in a cooperative building task and tapes were coded for the amount of cognitive sensitivity the older sibling exhibited toward the younger sibling. RESULTS: Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted and showed an interaction between sibship size and sibling cognitive sensitivity in the prediction of children's receptive vocabulary; children exposed to large sibships whose next-in-age older sibling exhibited higher levels of cognitive sensitivity were less likely to show low vocabulary skills when compared with those children exposed to large sibships whose siblings showed lower levels of cognitive sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: Children who show sensitivity to the cognitive needs of their younger siblings provide a rich environment for language development. The negative impact of large sibships on language development is moderated by the presence of an older sibling who shows high cognitive sensitivity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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