MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2521367460 · doi:10.1111/jomf.12356

Marital Conflict Trajectories and Associations With Children's Disruptive Behavior

2016· article· en· W2521367460 on OpenAlexaff
Sheri Madigan, André Plamondon, Jennifer M. Jenkins

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marriage and the Family · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversité LavalAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepressive symptomsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyAdverse Childhood ExperiencesFamily conflictDemographyMarital statusClinical psychologyPsychiatryMental healthCognitionPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We seek to identify heterogeneous trajectories of marital conflict during the early childhood period, identify predictors associated with these trajectories, and examine associations between trajectory group membership and children's disruptive behavior. Participants were 469 families examined 4 times when the children were 2 to 54 months of age. Maternal reports of marital conflict, adverse childhood experiences, depressive symptoms, and sociodemographic characteristics were collected, and averaged maternal and paternal reports of child disruptive problems were used. Using growth mixture modeling, 3 trajectories of marital conflict were identified: high increasing (21.8%), high decreasing (7%), and low stable (71.2%). Maternal adverse childhood experiences predicted increased risk of belonging in the high‐increasing group, whereas depressive symptoms predicted increased risk of belonging in the high‐decreasing group. Importantly, children of mothers in the high‐increasing group exhibited higher levels of disruptive behavior at 54 months when compared with children of mothers in the high‐decreasing and low‐stable groups.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations38
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Marriage and the FamilySame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207