MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148843111 · doi:10.1177/0165025406066723

A cross-cultural study of behavioral inhibition in toddlers: East–West–North–South

2006· article· en· W2148843111 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kenneth H. Rubin, Sheryl A. Hemphill, Xinyin Chen, Paul D. Hastings, Ann Sanson, Alida Lo Coco, Carla Zappulla, Sung‐Yun Park, Hyun Sim Doh, Huichang Chen, Ling Sun, Chong-Hee Yoon, Liyin Cui

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Behavioral Development · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyObservational studyDevelopmental psychologyCross-culturalDemographyMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prevalence of behavioral inhibition in toddlers was examined in five cultures. Participants in this study included 110 Australian, 108 Canadian, 151 Chinese, 104 Italian, and 113 South Korean toddlers and their mothers who were observed during a structured observational laboratory session. Matched procedures were used in each country, with children encountering an unfamiliar stranger with a truck and a robot. Indicators of inhibition included the length of time toddlers delayed before approaching the stranger and the duration of contact with their mother while the stranger was in the room. Results were generally consistent with expectations and showed differences between eastern and western cultures; Italian and Australian toddlers were less inhibited than toddlers from the other countries, whereas Chinese and South Korean toddlers were more inhibited. The implications of these findings are discussed and a research agenda for further exploration of inhibition is outlined.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations124
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Behavioral DevelopmentSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207