MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790490579 · doi:10.1111/cdev.13015

The Development of Empathic Concern in Siblings: A Reciprocal Influence Model

2018· article· en· W2790490579 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Marc Jambon, Sheri Madigan, André Plamondon, Ella Daniel, Jennifer M. Jenkins

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Development · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversité LavalUniversity of Calgary
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychologySiblingEmpathyDevelopmental psychologyBirth orderCoparentingSibling relationshipSocial psychologyDemographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study utilized actor–partner interdependence modeling to examine the bidirectional effects of younger (Mage = 18 months) and older siblings (Mage = 48 months) on later empathy development in a large (n = 452 families), diverse (42% immigrant) Canadian sample. Controlling for parenting, demographic characteristics, sibling relationship quality, and within-child stability in empathic concern, both younger and older siblings’ observed empathic concern uniquely predicted relative increases in the other's empathy over a period of 18 months. The strength of the partner effects did not differ by birth order. Sex composition moderated the younger sibling partner effect, whereas age gap moderated the older sibling partner effect. This study highlights the important role that siblings play in enhancing the development of care and concern for others.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.316
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations63
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild DevelopmentSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207