Dyadic analysis of siblings' relationship quality, behavioural responses, and pain experiences during experimental pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on family factors in paediatric pain has primarily focused on parents; the role of siblings has been largely ignored. This study examined whether sibling relationship quality was related to siblings' behaviours during experimental pain, and whether the behaviours of an observing sibling were related to children's pain outcomes. Ninety-two sibling dyads between 8 and 12 years old completed both observational and questionnaire measures of sibling relationship quality. Children took turns completing the cold-pressor task (CPT) in a counterbalanced order with their sibling present. Pain outcomes (intensity, fear, and tolerance) were recorded for each sibling, and the behaviour of the observing and participating siblings during the CPT were coded as attending, nonattending, and coping/encouragement. Structural equation modelling, using the actor-partner interdependence model, was conducted to analyse the dyadic data. While participating in the CPT with their sibling present, greater levels of warmth and positivity in the sibling relationship were related to children engaging in more nonattending behaviours and less attending behaviours. Greater levels of attending behaviours by the observing child was related to the sibling having a lower pain tolerance, and greater levels of coping/encouragement behaviours by the observing child was related to the sibling reporting greater pain intensity and fear during the CPT. Children with warmer/positive sibling relationships were more likely to respond to acute pain by shifting the focus away from their pain experience (eg, through distraction) when a sibling was present. Pain-focused behaviours by an observing sibling are related to greater child pain and fear during experimental pain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".