Young children's differential use of power during family conflict: A longitudinal study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study identified longitudinal and birth order differences in young children's use of power over a 2‐year period; the sample included 2‐ and 4‐year‐old (T1) and 4‐ and 6‐year‐old (T2) siblings ( n = 39). Power was investigated via its use (i.e., actions) and effectiveness (i.e., successful actions) during naturally occurring polyadic family conflicts at home involving three or more family members (two children and at least one parent or two parents and at least one child). Observations were transcribed and sequences of polyadic family conflict (T1 n = 780; T2 n = 210) were identified and coded for power (coercive, reward, legitimate, simple, information) and conflict resolution (win‐lose, compromise, no resolution); win‐lose resolution was used as an indicator of power effectiveness, by isolating winning cases for the analyses. Differences in power use and effectiveness were revealed across both time points and birth order, namely between 4‐year‐old older siblings at T1 and 4‐year‐old younger siblings at T2. Results provide insight into young children's power behavior within the family context.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it