MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964223096 · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.709

Theory of mind and self-concept in preadolescents: Links with gender and language.

2000· article· en· W1964223096 on OpenAlexaff
Sandra Bosacki

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Educational Psychology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyVocabularyTheory of mindDevelopmental psychologySelf-conceptSocial competenceSocial cognitionCompetence (human resources)Social psychologyCognitionSocial changeLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The investigation of the ability to attribute mental states to others and to see them as the basis for people's actions has been referred to as theory of mind (ToM) research. This study assessed ToM, or social understanding, in preadolescent s and examined individual differences in the relations among social understanding, self-concept, and language competence. One hundred twenty-eight preadolescents (64 girls, 64 boys; mean age =11 years, 9 months) completed tasks concerning self-concept and vocabulary and participated in a story-telling interview that assessed social and self-understanding. There were positive associations between children's social understanding and (a) self-understanding, (b) selfperceptions of behavioral conduct, and (c) general vocabulary ability. Independent of vocabulary ability, girls scored higher than boys on both social and self-understanding tasks.

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)0.005
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations165
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Educational PsychologySame topicChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207