Sibling relationship quality in early adolescence: child and maternal perceptions and daily interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Correspondence between child and maternal perceptions of sibling relationship quality (standards, actual ratings, problems) and children's reports of daily interactions were assessed in 40 early adolescent children (M age=11.5 yrs) and their mothers (n=32). Children completed the Sibling Relationship Questionnaire (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985. Child Development, 56, 448–461) and Daily Checklist ratings of sibling interactions for 14 days. Mothers completed the Parental Expectations and Perceptions of Children's Sibling Relationship Questionnaire (Kramer & Baron, 1995. Family Relations, 44, 95–103). Overall, findings revealed correspondence between child perceptions of sibling warmth and maternal ratings of standards, actual ratings, and problems in sibling warmth but not conflict and rivalry. Maternal and child perceptions of sibling relationship qualities were positively associated with children's reports of ongoing interactions. Finally, regression analyses identified unique maternal and child correlates for both happy and prosocial daily interactions. Findings are discussed in light of recent research and theory on family dynamics. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".