MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Judge Specificity of Evaluations of Youth Social Behavior: The Case of Peer Provocation

2009· article· en· W1578950906 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Development · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAggressionProvocation testDevelopmental psychologyAssertivenessSocial competenceCompetence (human resources)Peer groupSocial psychologySocial skillsIntervention (counseling)Social change

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Increasingly, theorists have suggested that social competence is an evaluative construct that will vary as a function of who is judging behavior. This study examined how two key groups in children's social environments—peers (N = 663, age range = 10.83–15.25 years) and teachers (N = 49)—rated the effectiveness of different behaviors generated by youth in response to physical, verbal, and relational provocation by peers. Results indicated that youth evaluated aggressive responses as more effective than teachers whereas teachers evaluated seeking an explanation as more effective than youth. Both groups judged responses combining assertive and aggressive elements to be more effective than ‘pure’ aggression. Implications for measurement and intervention models of social competence are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it