Cognitive sensitivity and child receptive vocabulary: A between- and within-family study of mothers and sibling pairs.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the association between observed cognitive sensitivity (CS) during family interactions and children's receptive vocabulary for older and younger siblings. Maternal and sibling CS was considered and associations were explored at the family-wide (between-family) and child-specific (within-family) levels of analysis. The interactions of mothers and 2 children per family were observed when younger siblings were 3.15 years (SD = 0.27) and older siblings were 5.57 years (SD = 0.77). Each dyad (mother-older sibling, mother younger-sibling, and sibling dyad, N = 385) completed a Lego building task, and there were two directional CS scores per interaction (e.g., mother toward older sibling, and older sibling toward mother). Results from multilevel models indicated that younger siblings' vocabulary was associated with the average level of CS for mothers and older siblings, independently. Conversely, older siblings' vocabulary was associated with the average level of maternal CS and child-specific maternal CS. Findings suggest that the relationship between CS and vocabulary operates across the family system and differs for older and younger siblings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".