Power in Sibling Conflict during Early and Middle Childhood
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 Sources of power children use in sibling conflict during early and middle childhood were examined according to F rench and R aven's typology of power. Participants included 66 dyads with an older ( M = 81.8 months, SD = 14.48 months) and younger ( M = 56.2 months, SD = 13.03 months) sibling. Data based upon naturalistic observations were coded for conflict issues (object, procedure, and information), power types (coercive, information, and legitimate), power effectiveness (attempts and successes), and resolutions (win/lose and compromise). Siblings used coercive power in object issues and information power in procedural issues. Whereas younger siblings used legitimate power in procedural and object issues including win/lose and compromise outcomes, older siblings used coercive power in win/lose resolutions. Siblings did not differ in their effectiveness of power, but they were most effective when coercive power was employed. Findings are discussed in light of power theory and the development of conflict management skills.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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