MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061406393 · doi:10.1177/0261927x01020004002

Similarities and Differences in Mother-Daughter and Mother-Son Conversations During Preadolescence and Adolescence

2001· article· en· W2061406393 on OpenAlexaff
Sherry L. Beaumont, Viviane C. B. Vasconcelos, Monica Ruggeri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Language and Social Psychology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreadolescencePsychologyDevelopmental psychologyStyle (visual arts)ConversationGirlDaughterCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Temporal and functional conversation styles were examined in discussions between mothers and their preadolescent or adolescent sons and daughters. Conversations were audiotaped and coded for speakers’ rates of overlaps between speaking turns, simultaneous speech, and successful interruptions. Results indicated that boys and girls of both ages used a high-involvement conversational style including frequent overlaps, simultaneous speech, and interruptions. Mothers used a high-considerateness style characterized by significantly lower rates of overlaps, simultaneous speech, and interruptions than their children. Secondary analyses examining the functions of speakers’ simultaneous speech and successful interruptions indicated that adolescents produced less confirming simultaneous speech than preadolescents, and more confirming simultaneous speech was produced in the preadolescent boy dyads than in either the adolescent boy dyads or the preadolescent girl dyads. Finally, adolescent boys produced significantly more rejecting successful interruptions than their mothers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations13
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Language and Social PsychologySame topicLanguage, Discourse, Communication StrategiesFrench-language works237,207