MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2514706994 · doi:10.1352/1944-7558-121.5.383

Sibling Relationships in Adolescence and Early Adulthood With People Who Have Intellectual Disability

2016· article· en· W2514706994 on OpenAlexaff
Frank J. Floyd, Catherine L. Costigan, Shana Richardson

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
KeywordsClosenessPsychologyDevelopmental psychologySiblingSibling relationshipFeelingYoung adultReciprocalBirth orderSocial psychologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cross-sectional (N = 106) and longitudinal (N = 35) samples of siblings (ages 11-38) reported on closeness and conflict in their relationships with sisters and brothers with intellectual disability. For closeness, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) distinguished feelings of emotional closeness from reciprocal sharing behaviors for these siblings. Age effects and changes over time indicated increasing emotional closeness and a general reduction in conflict from adolescence to young adulthood, with stable reciprocal sharing. Cross-sectionally, closeness was greater when siblings were involved in caregiving, and conflict was less when siblings no longer co-resided. Sibling constellation features (sex, birth order, age spacing) had limited effects at this developmental period. Findings support a combination of life-span developmental change and enduring attachment in these sibling 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.

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)0.005
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations30
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal on Intellectual and Developmental DisabilitiesSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207