Bibliographic record
Abstract
Across the globe, the vast majority of adolescents have siblings, who play an important socialization role in one another's development, given their long and mutually constructed history and strong attachment to one another. Critical theory for understanding the role of adolescent siblings in the family and in each other's lives is discussed from the perspective of relationships, family systems, social learning, psychodynamic, and behavioral–genetic theories. These theories provide a framework for the discussion of characteristics of the sibling relationship, which includes a focus on structural features, cultural differences, and relationship quality as key factors. Associations between sibling relationship quality and developmental outcomes include both positive and negative outcomes. Positive outcomes focus on prosocial behaviors such as kindness, sympathy, and emotional self‐regulation, whereas negative outcomes include aggression, bullying, and engaging in at‐risk behaviors such as delinquency and substance abuse. In addition, the association between relationship quality and psychopathology is covered, and also interventions for dealing with problematic sibling relationships. Finally, the effects of parents on sibling relations and different types of sibling relationships (i.e., children with a sibling with special needs, step‐ and half‐siblings, singletons) are also reviewed.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".