“I wish my people can be like the ducks”: Children's references to internal states with siblings and friends from early to middle childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The present study investigated children's internal state language during play with their sibling and friend across early and middle childhood. Specifically, the category type of internal state language (e.g., cognitions and goals), referent (e.g., own and other), and associations with children's birth order were examined. A total of 65 (T1: Time 1) and 46 (T2: Time 2) children were observed at age 4 and 3 years later when children were aged 7 with their sibling and with their friend in two separate play sessions at home. Videos were transcribed and coded for the frequency and category of internal state language. Children referenced cognitions more often with their sibling than friend at T2. Children's references to shared internal states (e.g., “we”) were more frequent at T2 than T1 across relationship contexts. Time effects were found when the category and referent of internal state language were cross‐tabulated (e.g., references to shared goals plus one's own cognitions were more characteristic at T2 than T1). Birth‐order effects were evident at T1 with younger children referencing goals and cognitions with their sibling more often than older children. Results provide new insight into children's use of internal state language across relationship contexts and developmental periods. Highlight The purpose of the present study was to compare children's category type and referent of internal state language across sibling and friend relationships and from early to middle childhood. Results demonstrated that children showed higher rates of cognitive terms at middle childhood, particularly with their sibling, and referred to shared internal states more at middle childhood than early childhood. Findings highlight the importance of considering social context and a longitudinal design when observing children's internal state language during play.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".