Familial risk and sibling mentalization: Links with preschoolers’ internalizing problems.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study explored whether older sibling mentalization moderated the relationship between familial risk for internalizing symptoms and the development of future internalizing problems in the younger siblings, referred to as target children. Data were collected on 397 older siblings at Time 1 (T1) when target children were newborn and their older siblings were on average 2.61 years old (SD = .75). Target children were on average 1.60 years old at Time 2 (T2). Internalizing problems were assessed via mother and partner reports. Familial risk was operationalized as the average of all older siblings' level of internalizing problems. Older sibling mentalization, indexed by internal state talk and reasoning, was observed and coded during a sibling pretend-play interaction at T2. Results revealed a significant interaction between familial risk of internalizing problems and older siblings' mentalizing abilities, showing that familial risk was related to target children's internalizing problems in the absence of sibling mentalization. Familial risk was not associated with target children's internalizing problems when siblings demonstrated mentalizing abilities. Findings support the need to consider sibling mentalization as a protective factor for children's internalizing problems. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".