MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972317010 · doi:10.1037//1040-3590.12.2.115

Reactive and proactive aggression: Evidence of a two-factor model.

2000· article· en· W1972317010 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

VenuePsychological Assessment · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAggressionConfirmatory factor analysisDiscriminant validityConstruct validityDevelopmental psychologyConstruct (python library)Test validityRating scalePsychometricsScale (ratio)Factor analysisPeer relationsStructural equation modelingClinical psychologyPeer groupStatisticsInternal consistency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the construct validity of reactive and proactive aggression, as assessed by the teacher-rating scale developed by K. A. Dodge and J. D. Coie (1987). In Study 1 (n = 149 boys), confirmatory factor analyses revealed that a 2-factor model, in which a substantial correlation was observed between the 2 latent factors, presented a better fit than a single-factor model. Study 2 (n = 193 boys) examined the relations presented by the 2 forms of aggression with peer status, leadership, social withdrawal, and victimization by peer. Reactive and proactive aggressive behaviors presented distinct patterns of relations consistent with the theoretical definitions. The results of these studies suggest that the questionnaire measures 2 forms of aggressive behavior that, although being substantially related, have a unique discriminant dimension.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0090.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.345 · 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