MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976744119 · doi:10.3200/gntp.165.3.233-249

The Relationship Between Loneliness and Interpersonal Trust During Middle Childhood

2004· article· en· W1976744119 on OpenAlexaff
Ken J. Rotenberg, Keltie J. Macdonald, Emily V. King

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Genetic Psychology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLonelinessPsychologyReciprocalDevelopmental psychologyInterpersonal communicationSocial psychologyDilemmaInterpersonal relationship

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors administered measures of loneliness, generalized trust beliefs in peers, and trust beliefs in specific familiar peers (i.e., opposite-gender peers, same-gender peers, close same-gender peers) to a sample of 63 children (33 girls, 30 boys) from 4th and 5th grades (M age = 10 years, 6 months). They assessed children's trusting behavior by engaging them in a Prisoner's Dilemma game (reciprocal trusting) and by evaluating teachers' ratings. The authors found that, across gender, loneliness was negatively correlated with each measure of trust beliefs and trusting behavior. As expected, the relationship between children's loneliness and trust, specifically trust beliefs in same-gender peers, was stronger for girls than for boys. In support of an additive risk model, the authors found low trust beliefs in same-gender peers and low reciprocal trusting behavior with peers each statistically contributed to loneliness in girls.

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)0.008
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations119
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Genetic PsychologySame topicBullying, Victimization, and AggressionFrench-language works237,207