Children's connectedness and shared meanings strategies during play with siblings and friends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The present longitudinal study investigated children's shared meanings strategies used to initiate, sustain, and end connectedness during play with siblings and friends from early to middle childhood. Participants included 65 4‐year‐old focal children at time 1 (T1) and 46 7‐year‐old focal children at time 2 (T2) videotaped at home in separate semi‐structured free play sessions with an older or younger sibling and a same‐aged friend at both time points. Data were coded for (a) shared meanings strategies (e.g., introductions to play, description of actions) and (b) connectedness in communication (i.e., initiating, sustaining, and ending conversation). The two sets of codes were combined to create a new blended code (e.g., introduction‐initiate). Children used several strategies consistently to initiate, sustain, and end connectedness across play sessions, but in other cases employed strategies differentially. There were a few notable relationship differences; children engaged in more prosocial behavior and employed a play voice when initiating connectedness with their friend than sibling and more clarifications when sustaining connectedness with their sibling. The findings provide nuanced and novel insights into children's shared meanings strategies during play and connectedness in child‐child relationships across time.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".