MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1883256075 · doi:10.18357/ijcyfs21/220115431

SERIOUS CONDUCT PROBLEMS AMONG GIRLS AT RISK: TRANSLATING RESEARCH INTO INTERVENTION

2011· article· en· W1883256075 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Marlene M. Moretti, Candice L. Odgers, N. Dickon Reppucci, Nicole Catherine

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Child Youth and Family Studies · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAggressionIntervention (counseling)PsychologyDevelopmental psychologyPerspective (graphical)Life spanInterpersonal communicationSocial psychologyMedicinePsychiatryGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Times New Roman;">Until recently, research on serious conduct problems focused primarily on boys and men. In the past decade, however, we have gained a better understanding of the unique and shared risk and protective factors for girls and boys, and the role of gender in relation to developmental pathways associated with such problems. In this paper we discuss findings from the Gender and Aggression Project on risk and protective factors for girls who are perpetrators but also victims of violence. We discuss our findings from a developmental perspective, with the goal of understanding how exposure to adversity and violence early in life places girls at risk for aggression and violence, among other problems, and how continued exposure to trauma and the disruption of interpersonal and self-regulatory developmental processes cascades into ever deeper and broader problems. This research points more clearly to the need for accessible, evidence-based, and developmentally sensitive intervention.</span>

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.363
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations18
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Child Youth and Family StudiesSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207