Observed Gossip Moderates the Link between Anxious Withdrawal and Friendship Quality in Early Adolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated whether gossip between best friends moderated the relation between anxious withdrawal and friendship quality in early adolescence, using an Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM, Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006) approach. Participants (n = 256) were 5th and 6th grade young adolescents (actors) and their best friends (partners). Observed gossip between best friends moderated the association between anxious withdrawal and young adolescent' perceptions of friendship quality. When gossip between best friends was infrequent, the greater the anxious withdrawal the lower the perceived positive friendship quality, but this relation disappeared when gossip between best friends was of moderate or high frequency. Further, when gossip between best friends was infrequent, the greater the anxious withdrawal the lower the perceived friendship conflict; but when gossip was frequent, the greater the anxious withdrawal the greater the friendship conflict. Results suggest that gossip may have both positive and negative consequences for the friendships, when taking into consideration the level of anxious withdrawal of the young adolescents involved in the friendship.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".