Testing the Normative Hypothesis of Relational Aggression and Psychopathology through Gender and Age Moderation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The gender normative hypothesis of relational aggression and psychopathology states that relational aggression is more detrimental to boys than it is to girls because relational aggression is more normative in girls. In the present study, this hypothesis was tested in a large sample of 6-to-18-year-old children and this hypothesis was also extended to the domain of age norms. Specifically, it was tested whether relational aggression would also be most detrimental outside of the age in which it is most normative. The results showed some evidence supporting the gender normative hypothesis. Specifically, it was found that relationally aggressive boys suffered more internalizing and externalizing problems than non-relationally aggressive boys did. Relationally aggressive girls, however, suffered only more externalizing problems than non-relationally aggressive girls did. Results did not support the age normative hypothesis. Implications of these findings and future directions are discussed. iii Acknowledgments Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Jennifer L. Tackett, for all of invaluable
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".