MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Friendship Moderates Prospective Associations Between Social Isolation and Adjustment Problems in Young Children

2007· article· en· W1985937815 on OpenAlexaff
Brett Laursen, William M. Bukowski, Kaisa Aunola, Jari‐Erik Nurmi

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Development · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsFriendshipPsychologySocial isolationDevelopmental psychologyIsolation (microbiology)Longitudinal studyPeer groupPeer relationsProspective cohort studySocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This longitudinal study investigated prospective links between social isolation and adjustment problems among 166 (77 girls, 89 boys) Finnish children ages 7 to 9. Peer nominations for social engagement and self-reports of internalizing and externalizing problems were collected in the spring of the 1st and 2nd grade. Friendship moderated prospective associations between peer and adjustment variables. Among friended children, there were no prospective associations between social isolation and either internalizing or externalizing problems. Among unfriended children, initial social isolation was positively linked to subsequent increases in internalizing and externalizing problems, and initial internalizing and externalizing problems predicted subsequent increases in social isolation. The findings suggest that friendship buffers against the adverse consequences associated with being isolated and presenting adjustment difficulties.

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)0.004
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations205
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild DevelopmentSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207