Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cultural context plays an important role in the development of individual social and behavioral characteristics and peer relationships (e.g., Hinde, 1987). As a result, children in different cultures may engage in different types of social interactions and develop different types of relationships. Moreover, cultural values and beliefs, particularly those pertaining to developmental goals and socialization practices, may affect the function and organization of peer relationships. Specifically, cultural norms and values may serve as a basis for the interpretation of particular behaviors (e.g., aggression, sociability, shyness–inhibition) and for the judgment about the appropriateness of these behaviors. The interpretation and evaluation of social behaviors in turn may have pervasive implications for the processes of peer interactions and the formation of dyadic and group relationships. Finally, the cultural aspects of children's peer experiences are reflected in how they affect developmental pathways and outcomes. For example, the extent to which children's interactions with each other do or do not include responsibility for younger children in a culture (see Gaskins, this volume) may be associated with the later display of nurturance and prosocial behavior. Despite the importance of cultural context for individual social functioning and peer interactions, the research on peer relationships has traditionally focused on Western, particularly North American, cultures. In the past decade, researchers have expanded their work considerably in non-Western regions of the world (e.g., Brown, Larson, & Saraswathi, 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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".