Individual Differences in Sibling Teaching in Early and Middle Childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research Findings: Sibling teaching and learning behaviors were investigated in 2 studies of children in early and middle childhood. Study 1 addressed individual differences in teaching/learning and associations with dyadic age, age gap, gender, birth order, and relationship quality in 71 middle-class dyads (firstborns M age = 81.54 months; second-borns M age = 56.27 months). Half of the firstborn and half of the second-born siblings were assigned the role of teacher. Regression analyses indicated that dyadic age and age gap made unique contributions to teacher and learner behavior. Few birth order differences in approaches to teaching/learning were revealed. Findings highlight the reciprocal nature of sibling teaching and learning. Study 2 investigated longitudinal associations between sibling relationship quality and teaching in a second sample (at Time 1 firstborns = 46.8 months; second-borns = 14 months). Positive sibling interaction (including play) at Time 1 was associated with teaching/learning behaviors 4 years later. Practice or Policy: Findings are discussed in light of recent social constructivist notions that children's development is facilitated in the context of intimate relationships.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".