MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Someone to Lean on: Assessment and Implications of Social Surrogate Use in Childhood

2011· article· en· W1958038797 on OpenAlexaff
Kimberley A. Arbeau, Robert J. Coplan, Adrienne Matheson

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Development · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaCarleton UniversityUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShynessPsychologySocioemotional selectivity theorySocial anxietyLonelinessDevelopmental psychologyExternalizationFear of negative evaluationAnxietyConstruct (python library)Clinical psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A social surrogate is a person who helps a shy individual deal with the stresses of a social situation. Previous research has only investigated social surrogate use in adults. The purpose of the current study was to develop and evaluate a new self‐report measure of social surrogacy in middle childhood and to explore the implications of this phenomenon for children's socioemotional functioning. Participants were N = 328 children in grades 3–5 (Meanage= 9.45, Standard deviation = .93). Children completed the newly developed child social surrogate questionnaire (CSSQ) as well as self‐report assessments of shyness, loneliness, social anxiety, peer victimization, and self‐perceptions. Results indicated good psychometric properties and evidence of construct validity for the CSSQ. Social surrogacy was related to elevated shyness, social anxiety, and victimization. Contrary to expectations, there was also some evidence to suggest that social surrogacy may have particularly negative implications for shy children.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.332 · 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

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial DevelopmentSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207