MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1949216584 · doi:10.1111/sode.12003

Shy but Getting By? An Examination of the Complex Links Among Shyness, Coping, and Socioemotional Functioning in Childhood

2012· article· en· W1949216584 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Development · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocioemotional selectivity theoryShynessPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyCoping (psychology)Late childhoodAnxietyClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The purpose of the current study was to test a conceptual model of the mediated and moderated associations among shyness, coping strategies, and socioemotional functioning in middle childhood. Participants were 358 children (177 boys) aged 9–13 years ( M = 10.16 years, SD =.95). Children completed self‐report assessments of shyness, coping style in response to a social stressor, internalizing problems, and peer difficulties. Among the results, shyness was positively associated with internalizing symptoms and negatively related to perceptions of peer difficulties. However, both of these associations were partially mediated by internalizing coping styles. Moreover, problem‐solving coping moderated these mediated pathways: among children who reported higher levels of problem‐solving coping, the associations between internalizing coping and outcomes were attenuated. Several gender differences also emerged, suggesting that problem‐solving coping may be particularly useful for shy boys. Results are discussed in terms of the complex but potentially critical role of coping in shy children's socioemotional functioning.

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.

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 score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.242 · 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