MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161256890 · doi:10.1080/01650250344000046

Compliance in Chinese and Canadian toddlers: A cross-cultural study

2003· article· en· W2161256890 on OpenAlexaffabout
Xinyin Chen, Kenneth H. Rubin, Mowei Liu, Huichang Chen, Li Wang, Dan Li, Xiangping Gao, Guozhen Cen, GU Hai-gen, Boshu Li

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Behavioral Development · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompliance (psychology)PsychologySituational ethicsDevelopmental psychologyPunishment (psychology)Observational studyChinaCultural diversityChild rearingParenting stylesSocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Observational data concerning children’s compliance were collected from samples of 2-year-olds in PR China and Canada. Information on child-rearing attitudes was obtained from mothers. It was found that Chinese toddlers had higher scores on voluntary committed compliance than their Canadian counterparts. In contrast, Canadian toddlers had higher scores on externally imposed or situational compliance and overt protest than Chinese toddlers. Girls displayed more committed compliance than boys in both samples. Maternal warmth and induction were positively associated with committed compliance in Chinese toddlers, and maternal induction was positively associated with situational compliance in Canadian toddlers. Maternal punishment orientation was negatively associated with committed compliance and positively associated with situational control in Chinese toddlers, but not in Canadian toddlers. The results might indicate specific cultural “meanings” of different forms of child compliance.

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 score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.343 · 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

Citations120
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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