MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1631681819

Physical aggression during early childhood: trajectories and predictors.

2005· article· en· W1631681819 on OpenAlexaff
Richard E. Tremblay, Daniel S. Nagin, Jean R. Séguin, Mark Zoccolillo, Philip David Zelazo, Michel Boivin, Daniel Pérusse, Christa Japel

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAggressionPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychological interventionLogistic regressionEarly childhoodPoison controlInjury preventionMedicinePsychiatryMedical emergency
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to identify the trajectories of physical aggression during early childhood and antecedents of high levels of physical aggression early in life. METHODS: 572 families with a 5-month-old newborn were recruited. Assessments of physical aggression frequency were obtained from mothers at 17, 30, and 42 months after birth. Using a semiparametric mixture model and multivariate logit regression analyses, distinct clusters of physical aggression trajectories were identified, as well as family and child characteristics that predict high level aggression trajectories. RESULTS: THREE TRAJECTORIES OF PHYSICAL AGGRESSION WERE IDENTIFIED: 1. children (28% of sample) who displayed little or no physical aggression, 2. approximately 58% followed a rising trajectory of modest aggression, and 3. a rising trajectory of high physical aggression (14%). CONCLUSIONS: Children who are at highest risk of not learning to regulate physical aggression in early childhood have mothers with a history of antisocial behaviour during their school years, mothers who start childbearing early and who smoke during pregnancy, and parents who have low income and have serious problems living together. Preventive interventions should target families with high-risk profiles on these variables.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.575
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations106
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicBullying, Victimization, and AggressionFrench-language works237,207