Prosoziales Verhalten in mittlerer Kindheit und Adoleszenz: die Rolle von inner- und ausserfamilialen Beziehungen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the role of intra-familial and extra-familial relationships in children’s and adolescents’ prosocial behavior. Due to the changing quality of family relationships in the process of growing up, we compared two developmental stages: middle childhood and middle adolescence. For intra-familial relationships, we assessed the affective relationship quality and the communicative quality between parents and within the parent-child dyad. For extra-familial relationships, we measured parental work experiences and the presence of social networks. Analyses are based on the data from two collection waves (2006, 2007) of the youngest cohort (6-year olds) and the middle cohort (15-year olds) of the Swiss Survey of Children andYouth (COCON). The results reveal that the relationship quality between parents predicts children’s prosocial behavior, whereas the communicative quality of the parent-child dyad is more important in adolescence. Parental work experiences and social networks predict prosocial behavior indirectly through the quality of affective relationships and the quality of communication within the family.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".