MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103435892 · doi:10.1177/0165025406063631

Affect and maternal parenting as predictors of adaptive and maladaptive behaviors in Chinese children

2006· article· en· W2103435892 on OpenAlexaff
Li Wang, Xinyin Chen, Huichang Chen, Liying Cui, Miao Li

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Behavioral Development · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAffect (linguistics)Developmental psychologyProsocial behaviorParenting stylesContext (archaeology)Social environmentChild rearing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emotional control has traditionally been emphasized in Chinese culture. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the relevance of early affect to social functioning in Chinese children. A sample of children, initially at two years of age, and their mothers in the People's Republic of China participated in this two-year longitudinal study. At Time 1, observational data were collected on children's affect and maternal parenting in mother-child interactions. At Time 2, children's behaviors were assessed in peer interactions. In addition, data on behavioral problems were collected from parental reports. It was found that whereas positive affect positively predicted prosocial behavior, negative affect was positively associated with later behavioral problems. Both positive and negative affects were negatively associated with on-task behaviors. Finally, child affect might moderate the relation between maternal parenting and social behaviors. The results indicate the role of child affect and parenting in social and behavioral development in Chinese context.

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)0.002
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations39
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Behavioral DevelopmentSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207