Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peer relationships play an important role in children’s emotional, social, and cognitive development. Very little is known about the development of peer relationships between toddlers. This dissertation examined the formation of relationships between 28 unfamiliar 20- and 30-month-old toddlers. Participants met separately with each of two other toddlers for 18 playdates.In Study 1, the frequency and length of games, conflicts and contingency sequences were examined. The frequency of games increased over time, while the frequency of conflict and contingency sequences decreased. The length of games increased over time while the length of conflicts and contingency sequences was stable. Age did not predict changes in frequency and length of the different types of sequences. Study 2 examined changes in positive and negative behaviors over time. For older, but not younger, toddlers, the frequency of both total positive and negative actions increased as relationships developed. While significant amounts of the variance were explained at the session and dyad-levels for both positive and negative actions, variance at the child-level was only significant for negative actions. Study 3 examined whether behaviors early in the formation of toddler relationships predicted interactions later in their relationships. Both positive and negative behaviors at the beginning of the relationship predicted a higher frequency of games later in the relationship. Positive behaviors at the beginning of the relationship predicted fewer conflicts later in the relationship. Negative behaviors at the beginning predicted more conflicts later in the relationship. The unique design of this study allowed tracing the relationship of toddlers who were initially unfamiliar with one another. The findings suggest that as toddler relationships evolve, their interactions become increasingly more organized and complex; over time, their relationships include, not only positive, but also negative actions. Finally, toddlers’ behaviors when they initially meet, underlie the pathway in which their relationship develops. Taken together, these findings are consistent with characteristics of the development of 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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".