MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4290804161 · doi:10.1111/cdev.13839

Parental history of positive development and child behavior in next generation offspring: A two-cohort prospective intergenerational study

2022· article· en· W4290804161 on OpenAlexaff
Primrose Letcher, Christopher Greenwood, Helena M. McAnally, Jay Belsky, Jacqui A. Macdonald, Elizabeth Spry, Kimberly Thomson, Meredith O’Connor, Judith Sligo, George J. Youssef, Jennifer McIntosh, Ella Iosua, Delyse Hutchinson, Joyce Cleary, Ann Sanson, George Patton, Robert J. Hancox, Craig A. Olsson

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Development · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsLearning PartnershipUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentHealth Research Council of New ZealandNational Health and Medical Research CouncilAustralian Research CouncilMedical Research Council
KeywordsOffspringPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyTemperamentEthnic groupCohortChild developmentDemographyPersonalityMedicinePregnancySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study examined whether positive development (PD) in adolescence and young adulthood predicts offspring behavior in two Australasian intergenerational cohorts. The Australian Temperament Project Generation 3 Study assessed PD at age 19–28 (years 2002–2010) and behavior in 1165 infants (12–18 months; 608 girls) of 694 Australian-born parents (age 29–35; 2012–2019; 399 mothers). The Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Parenting Study assessed PD at age 15–18 (years 1987–1991) and behavior in 695 preschoolers (3–5 years; 349 girls) and their New Zealand born parents (age 21–46; 1994–2018; 363 mothers; 89% European ethnicity). In both cohorts, PD before parenthood predicted more positive offspring behavior (βrange = .11–.16) and fewer behavior problems (βrange = −.09 to −.11). Promoting strengths may secure a healthy start to life.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild DevelopmentSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207