MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Are sibling relationships protective? A longitudinal study

2006· article· en· W2104029615 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSiblingPsychologyAffectionSibling relationshipDevelopmental psychologyPsychopathologyIntervention (counseling)Longitudinal studyQuality of life (healthcare)Clinical psychologyPsychiatryMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although the protective effects of familial and parental support have been studied extensively in the child psychopathology literature, few studies have explored the protective quality of positive sibling relationships. METHODS: A two-wave longitudinal design was used to examine the protective effect of positive sibling relationships on child adjustment for children experiencing stressful life events. Mothers reported on stressful life events and child adjustment. Older siblings assessed the quality of relationship between themselves and target children. RESULTS: Sibling affection moderated the relationship between stressful life events and internalizing symptomatology but not the relationship between stressful life events and externalizing symptomatology. Notably, the protective effect of sibling affection was evident regardless of mother-child relationship quality. CONCLUSIONS: Positive sibling relationships are an important source of support for children experiencing stressful life events. Implications for intervention are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.736

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.290 · 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