Parental co-parenting quality, children’s emotion regulation abilities, and prosocial behavior
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study used latent profile analysis to explore latent profiles of parental coparenting quality and their relationships with children's prosocial behavior, and to examine the mediating role of children's emotion regulation abilities. METHODS: = 55.95, SD = 8.42). RESULTS: Three coparenting profiles were identified: lowquality, moderatequality, and highquality parental coparenting. Compared with the lowquality profile, both the moderatequality profiles and highquality profiles significantly predicted higher children's prosocial behavior via enhanced emotion regulation and reduced emotion lability/negativity. Compared with the moderatequality profile, the highquality profile predicted children's prosocial behavior only through reduced emotion lability/negativity. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the critical role of parental coparenting quality in shaping children's emotion regulation abilities and prosocial behavior, demonstrating distinct pathways for different coparenting profiles. The results offer practical insights for fostering children's prosocial development.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it