Parents’ and children’s power effectiveness during polyadic family conflict: Process and outcome
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Parent–child power effectiveness was investigated during naturally occurring polyadic family conflict with young children involving three or more family members. In 35/39 families, 210 conflict sequences were identified and coded for type of power, power effectiveness, and conflict outcome. Effective use of power overall and by each partner was assessed using two methods: microscopic (target’s response to an actor’s power move during the process of conflict) and macroscopic (power moves related to conflict outcome). Actor findings revealed that parents were more effective using certain types of power microscopically (i.e., simple, legitimate, reward) and macroscopically (i.e., simple, legitimate, questioning), whereas children were more effective using reward power macroscopically. Our findings support the unique qualities of the parent–child relationship and the complex context of polyadic family conflict. The study contributes to the literature on the socialization of young children in the family context.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it