MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283517940 · doi:10.1111/bjdp.12425

Parental warmth predicts more child pro‐social behaviour in children with better emotion regulation

2022· article· en· W4283517940 on OpenAlexafffundabout
H. Melis Yavuz, Tyler Colasante, Tina Malti

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Developmental Psychology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsProsocial behaviorPsychologyVagal toneDevelopmental psychologyPerspective (graphical)Child developmentCohortMedicineHeart rate variability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Parental warmth and child emotion regulation have each been implicated in the development of child pro‐social behaviours; however, their interactive benefits remain unclear. In this multi‐method, multi‐cohort longitudinal study, we examined the effect of parental warmth on child pro‐social behaviours at different levels of child emotion regulation. We collected data from 6‐ and 10‐year‐olds in Canada ( N T1 = 233; M age = 8.41; SD = 2.08) and their parents. Parental warmth, child emotion regulation, and child pro‐social behaviours were assessed via parent report. Children's baseline respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA; an indicator of cardiac regulatory capacity) was assessed as a correlate of emotion regulation. Child pro‐social behaviours were assessed concurrently and 1 year later. Results showed that higher parental warmth was related to higher concurrent prosocial behaviours and greater increases in prosocial behaviours over 1 year. These effects were strengthened for children with higher emotion regulation whether measured by parent report or RSA. We discuss implications for understanding pro‐social development in middle childhood from a strengths‐based perspective.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Developmental PsychologySame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207