MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Associations Between Social Understanding, Sibling Relationship Quality, and Siblings’ Conflict Strategies and Outcomes

2009· article· en· W2128679843 on OpenAlex
Holly Recchia, Nina Howe

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

VenueChild Development · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySiblingDevelopmental psychologySibling relationshipQuality (philosophy)Social psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sibling relationship quality and social understanding (second-order false belief, conflict interpretation, and narrative conflict perspective references) were examined as unique and interactive correlates of sibling conflict behavior in 62 dyads (older M age = 8.39 years and younger M age = 6.06 years). High-quality relationships were associated with positive conflict processes. Younger siblings' second-order false belief scores were negatively associated with constructive conflict strategies, and older siblings' narrative self-referential focus was negatively associated with compromise. Associations between younger children's social understanding (conflict interpretation and narrative perspective references) and siblings' dyadic conflict behavior were moderated by relationship quality. Results suggest that links between social understanding and conflict behavior should be considered in conjunction with the quality of children's relationships.

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 score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score0.855

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.199
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.191 · 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