Cumulative Effects of Mothers' Risk and Promotive Factors on Daughters' Disruptive Behavior.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about the ways in which the accumulation of maternal factors increases or reduces risk for girls' disruptive behavior during preadolescence. In the current study, maternal risk and promotive factors and the severity of girls' disruptive behavior were assessed annually among girls' ages 7-12 in an urban community sample (N = 2043). Maternal risk and promotive factors were operative at different time points in girls' development. Maternal warmth explained variance in girls' disruptive behavior, even after controlling for maternal risk factors and relevant child and neighborhood factors. In addition, findings supported the cumulative hypothesis that the number of risk factors increased the chance on girls' disruptive behavior disorder (DBD), while the number of promotive factors decreased this probability. Daughters of mothers with a history of Conduct Disorder (CD) were exposed to more risk factors and fewer promotive factors compared to daughters of mothers without prior CD. The identification of malleable maternal factors that can serve as targets for intervention has important implications for intergenerational intervention. Cumulative effects show that the focus of prevention efforts should not be on single factors, but on multiple factors associated with girls' disruptive behavior.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".