MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910251197 · doi:10.1111/bjdp.12277

‘H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, PEE! Get it? Pee!’: Siblings’ shared humour in childhood

2019· article· en· W2910251197 on OpenAlexafffund
Amy L. Paine, Nina Howe, Gassiaa Karajian, Dale F. Hay, Ganie DeHart

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Developmental Psychology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Humour is a central feature of social interactions in childhood that has received little attention. In a sample of 86 7-year-old children (M age = 7.82 years, SD = 0.80), we investigated patterns and individual differences in spontaneous humour observed during free play with their older (M age = 9.55 years, SD = 0.88) or their younger sibling (M age = 5.87 years, SD = 0.96). We coded children's instances, categories, and responses to humour. We investigated the nature of children's humour on the dyadic and individual level. Humour was common, and siblings' production of humour was highly interdependent between play partners. Dyadic humour differed according to structural features of the sibling relationship (age, gender composition), and 7-year-old focal children's humour varied according to gender. This study contributes to knowledge regarding the dyadic nature of children's humour and individual patterns of humour beyond the preschool years. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Humour is an integral part of children's close and intimate interactions. Children produce humour from an early age and increasingly produce more complex humour as they develop. Few studies examine children's humour with siblings and beyond the fourth year of life. What does this study add? Children's humour during free play with siblings was common and highly dyadic. Sibling dyads' humour differed according to age and gender composition. Seven-year-old boys produced more humour than girls.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Developmental PsychologySame topicChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207