Sex differences in the personal costs and benefits of relational and physical aggression in high school
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract While recent research using peer ratings demonstrates positive relations between youth's reputations for aggression and popularity, it is not clear whether aggressive youth themselves make these links. Using youth's self‐reports, this study assessed the associations of relational and physical aggression with indicators of both personal gains in peer relations (perceived popularity and receipt of prosocial attention) and personal costs in terms of retaliation or depressive responses (peer victimization and depressive symptoms) in a large sample ( n =455) of eighth‐ to tenth‐grade students. Regression analyses reveal that more relationally aggressive youth report more prosocial attention but also more relational (but not physical) victimization. In contrast, more physically aggressive youth report more depressive symptoms and physical (but not relational) victimization. Findings suggest that some costs of aggression (victimization) are higher for boys while others (depressive symptoms) are greater for girls. Group differences were also found for aggressive, victimized, and aggressive/victimized youth compared to the typical low aggressive/low victimized youth. These data suggest that the costs of relational and physical aggression may outweigh benefits except for aggressive non‐victimized boys. Aggr. Behav. 32:409–419, 2006. © 2006 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it