MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405443033 · doi:10.1177/01650254241303722

Reciprocal associations between child disclosure, parental solicitation, and behavior problems during middle childhood

2024· article· en· W4405443033 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Cloé Desmarais, François Poulin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Behavioral Development · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaFonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et CultureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologySocioeconomic statusAssociation (psychology)Early childhoodReciprocalParenting stylesDemographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parental knowledge is often the result of parents soliciting information from their child and their child's disclosure of that information. Although child disclosure is most closely (and negatively) associated with behavior problems in adolescence, it is not yet known whether this is also the case in childhood. The aim of this study was to examine the longitudinal associations between child disclosure, parental solicitation, and behavior problems in Grades 1 to 4 in a Canadian sample, taking into account intra-individual stability, the child's gender, and socioeconomic status. The mothers and teachers of 911 children (62.7% boys) completed questionnaires in Grades 1, 2, 3, and 4. A Random Intercept Cross-Lagged Panel Model (RI-CLPM) showed that behavior problems in Grade 2 predicted an increase in parental solicitation in Grade 3. In contrast, behavior problems in Grade 3 predicted a decrease in parental solicitation in Grade 4. No cross-lagged association with child disclosure was observed. Although these results differ from those reported in adolescence, they suggest that middle childhood is a sensitive period for parent-child communication and behavior problems.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.209
Threshold uncertainty score0.783

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.286 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Behavioral DevelopmentSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207