Child Cognitive Flexibility and Maternal Control: A First Step toward Untangling Genetic and Environmental Contributions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Executive functions (EF) play an essential role in many spheres of child development. Therefore, it is crucial to get a better understanding of their etiology. Using a genetic design that involved 934 twins (400 monozygotic), this study examined the etiology of cognitive flexibility, a component of EF, at 5 years of age and its phenotypic and etiological associations with maternal control. Cognitive flexibility was measured in a laboratory setting at 5 years of age using a well-known EF-task, i.e. the Dimensional Change Card Sort (DCCS). Maternal control was measured using a self-report questionnaire. The univariate genetic model demonstrated that environmental factors mainly explained individual differences in preschoolers’ performance on the DCCS task. A bivariate genetic model demonstrated that non-shared environmental mechanisms mainly explained the association (r = .−13) between maternal control and children’s performance on the DCCS task. This study represents a preliminary step toward a better understanding of the genetic and environmental contributions underlying the relation between parenting behaviors and children’s EF.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".