Moving Beyond the Dyad: Broadening Our Understanding of Family Conflict
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The family represents a set of interconnected relationships, characterized by high levels of intimacy and closeness, which also provide opportunities for family conflict. In the literature, there appears to be a shift in understanding of what family conflict is and its subsequent consequences. Previous research focuses on dyadic family conflicts and often views it as a negative experience, resulting in the study of various maladaptive outcomes including internalizing and externalizing behaviour problems. Recently, researchers argue that family conflict should be operationalized to include more than two individuals. Further, evidence suggests that experience in conflict offers children a unique context to hone their social and cognitive skills. This review explores how research on family conflict has evolved. We investigate the status of the field by specifying that family conflict should include instances where more than two members are involved, how theories can be bridged to support this claim, and why it is also necessary to view family conflict as a positive experience. Lastly, we discuss key methodological and analytical issues as well as possible interventions that would help disentangle the inherent complexity of studying family conflict. We emphasize the implications of advancing the field for researchers and frontline professionals.
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 | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".