Stability of distinct relational profiles of adolescent sibling relationships and friendships: A latent transition analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined similarities in adolescent sibling and friend relationship quality over an 8-month period during COVID-19. We hypothesized that youth would perceive the qualities of their friendships and sibships in similar ways and that these patterns would remain stable during this period. Participants included 312 adolescents ( M = 15.75, SD = 1.20) who rated positive (e.g., companionship) and negative (e.g., conflict) aspects in both relationships at both times. Cross-sectional latent profile analyses supported two profiles, namely an ambivalent sibship/harmonious friendship (i.e., moderate sibling warmth and conflict, high friendship positivity, low friendship negativity) profile and an affect-intense (i.e., high positivity, high negativity) profile that were similar across both relationships. Latent transition analyses demonstrated that most adolescents fit into the ambivalent sibship/harmonious friendship profile (89% at T1, 91% at T2) relative to the affect-intense profile (11% at T1, 9% at T2). Most (97%) adolescents in the ambivalent sibship/harmonious friendship profile at T1 remained in the profile at T2, whereas 57% of youth in the affect-intense profile remained in the same profile at T2. Adolescents who remained in the affect-intense profile reported more frequent sibling and friend aggression perpetration and friend, but not sibling, aggression victimization than those who remained in the ambivalent sibship/harmonious friendship profile. These results highlight the contextual dynamics of adolescent relationships, especially the importance in recognizing the similarities among sibships and friendships.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".