Coparenting in Relation to Children’s Psychosocial and Diabetes-Specific Adjustment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the potential utility of a general and diabetes-specific measure of coparenting by evaluating linkages between coparenting and both the psychosocial and medical adjustment of children with type 1 diabetes (TID). METHOD: Mothers and fathers of children (ages 8-12 years; n=61) with TID completed questionnaires including measures of general and diabetes-specific coparenting, and children's internalizing and externalizing problems. Medical adjustment included parent-reported diabetes management behaviors, children's self-reported diabetes quality of life (QOL), and metabolic control (HbA1c) assessed during clinic appointments. RESULTS: Coparenting conflict around general child rearing tasks was significantly related to children's internalizing and externalizing problems. Diabetes-specific coparenting conflict was linked to poorer diabetes management behaviors and children's reports of poorer diabetes-specific quality of life, but not HbA1c. CONCLUSIONS: Significant findings offer preliminary support for the inclusion of coparenting assessments among children with TID and warrant further exploration.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".