Cross-Cultural Differences in Competition Among Children and Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nature and levels of competition in which children and adolescents engage have important social and educational consequences and may be linked to their social competence and interpersonal relations. In the social-psychological literature, competition is typically viewed as producing negative outcomes at both the individual and group levels (e.g., Sparkes, 1991; Thomas, 1978; Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978). Competition, as either a goal or behavior, is frequently portrayed as detrimental to group cohesion and as negatively affecting friendships and other relations. However, it is often viewed, with some reluctance, as also necessary for individual achievement and success (e.g., Domino, 1992, 2000; Thomas, 1978). Cooperation, on the other hand, is described as necessary for the maintenance of friendships and for the successful attainment of group goals (e.g., Foster, 1984; Gelb & Jacobsen, 1988; Thomas, 1978). In some cultures, however, competition is considered by some to be an essential part of a child's development and necessary for the acquisition of a variety of social skills (LeTendre, 1996; Richard et al., 2002).
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".