MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966295512 · doi:10.1002/bsl.429

Self–other representations and relational and overt aggression in adolescent girls and boys*

2001· article· en· W1966295512 on OpenAlexaff
Marlene M. Moretti, Roy Holland, Sue McKay

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Sciences & the Law · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAggressionPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyNegativity effectPoison controlClinical psychologyMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aggressive behavior in girls has received far less attention than similar problems in boys. This study examined self-representation, and others' representation of self, as predictors of relational aggression, overt aggression, and assaultive behavior in 32 girls and 52 boys, 10 to 17 years of age, referred for assessment due to significant aggressive and delinquent behavior problems. As predicted, negativity of self-representation predicted relational aggression in girls but not boys. Negativity of self-representation also predicted overt aggression and assaultive behavior in both girls and boys. Parental representations of self were not predictive in this sample; however, negativity of peer representations of self, was associated with increased relational aggression in girls and decreased relational aggression in boys. Negativity of peer representations of self also predicted overt aggression and assaultive behavior in both girls and boys. Results suggest that the evaluation of self-other representations may be valuable in the assessment of risk for gender specific patterns of aggression.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations130
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral Sciences & the LawSame topicBullying, Victimization, and AggressionFrench-language works237,207