When Do Siblings Compromise? Associations with Children's Descriptions of Conflict Issues, Culpability, and Emotions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study examined associations between children's descriptions of sibling conflicts and their resolutions during a structured negotiation task. A sample of 58 sibling dyads (older sibling M age = 8.39 years, younger sibling M = 6.06 years) were privately interviewed about an actual conflict. Each child provided a narrative that was coded for conflict issues, identified who was at fault, and described each sibling's conflict emotions. Children's subsequent conflict negotiations were coded for whether compromise outcomes were reached. Compromises were more likely when conflicts implicated physical harm and children reported experiencing sadness during their fights. Compromises were less likely when children believed that their sibling was solely culpable for a fight or they attributed more anger to self than to their sibling. Results also revealed various birth order, age group, and gender effects. Findings are discussed in light of moral domain theory, children's interpretive understanding of conflict, and goal‐based theories of emotions.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it