A Multi-Informant Multi-Method Investigation of Family Functioning and Parent–Child Coping During Children’s Acute Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To explore relations between family functioning and child acute pain, including pain ratings, coping, and parent–child behaviors. Methods: Community sample of 171 dyads including one child aged 8–12 years (52% girls) and one parent (79% mothers). Family functioning was assessed via child and parent self-report, and observation during a conflict discussion task. Children and parents rated pain catastrophizing at baseline, and child pain and distress following a cold pressor task (CPT). Parent–child interactions during the CPT were coded for observed behaviors during child pain. Results: Self-report of poorer family functioning predicted greater child and parent pain catastrophizing, and parent distress. Less observed family negativity/conflict and cohesiveness, and greater family focus of problems and parent emotional support predicted more child symptom complaints. Family functioning was not associated with child pain or distress. Conclusions: Family functioning influenced parent and child coping and child behavioral responses, but not the experience, of acute pain.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".