MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1807965818 · doi:10.5964/ejop.v11i3.957

Why Machiavellianism Matters in Childhood: The Relationship Between Children's Machiavellian Traits and Their Peer Interactions in a Natural Setting

2015· article· en· W1807965818 on OpenAlexaff
Loren Abell, Pamela Qualter, Gayle Brewer, Alexandra Barlow, Maria Stylianou, S. Peter Henzi, Louise Barrett

Bibliographic record

VenueEurope’s Journal of Psychology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMachiavellianismAggressionPsychologyObservational studyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyScale (ratio)Peer groupPersonalityPsychopathyMedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study investigated the association between Machiavellianism and children's peer interactions in the playground using observational methods. Primary school children (N = 34; 17 female), aged 9 to 11 years, completed the Kiddie Mach scale and were observed in natural play during 39 recesses (average observed time = 11.70 hours) over a full school year. Correlations for boys revealed that Machiavellianism was related to more time engaging in direct and indirect aggression, being accepted into other peer groups, and accepting peers into their own social group. Correlations revealed that for girls, Machiavellianism was associated with lower levels of indirect aggression, less time being accepted into other groups and less time accepting and rejecting other children into their own group. This preliminary pilot study indicates that Machiavellianism is associated with children's observed social behaviour and aims to promote future observational research in this area.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations15
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEurope’s Journal of PsychologySame topicBullying, Victimization, and AggressionFrench-language works237,207