A longitudinal examination of power in sibling and friend conflict
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study examined use of power resources and power effectiveness during the process and outcome of focal children's disputes with their sibling and friend across early and middle childhood. Participants included 35/46 families; focal children (15 males, 20 females) were observed at the age of four (T1) and 3 years later at the age of seven (T2) at home. Sibling and friend conflict sequences were coded for power resources (coercive physical, coercive verbal, simple information, elaborated information, legitimate), immediate power effectiveness (attempt, success), and conflict outcome. Relationship effects indicated focal children employed coercive physical and legitimate power more with siblings whereas they used simple information power more with friends during the conflict process. Focal children were more effective using legitimate power with siblings than friends in the conflict process whereas information power was used more when focal children won conflicts with friends. Regarding developmental effects, focal children employed more coercive physical power at T1 than T2 and elaborated information power at T2 than T1. In contrast, focal children were more effective using information power and coercion when winning conflicts with friends at T2 than T1. Results highlight variability in children's use of power based on relationship partner and development.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".