MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995967256 · doi:10.1002/icd.554

How children describe their shy/withdrawn peers

2008· article· en· W1995967256 on OpenAlexaff
Alastair J. Younger, Barry H. Schneider, Manal Guirguis‐Younger

Bibliographic record

VenueInfant and Child Development · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicStuttering Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSaint Paul UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShynessPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyAnxietySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In individual interviews, 227 children from the first, third, fifth, and seventh grades described the behaviours that characterize shyness in their peers. The categories of behaviour most frequently described included the following: doesn't talk, stays by self, doesn't play, walks/runs away from others, hides, looks away/avoids eye contact, physical signs of anxiety, stays near familiar people, cries, blushes, and gets mixed up when talking/stutters. The number of children mentioning hides, stays near familiar people, and cries decreased significantly across grade level, whereas the number mentioning doesn't talk, stays by self, blushes, and gets mixed up when talking/stutters increased across grade level. The situations in which children described the shy behaviours as occurring were classified as entailing either fearful shyness or self‐conscious shyness. The number of children who mentioned contexts involving fearful shyness declined across grade level grade, whereas the number mentioning contexts involving self‐conscious shyness increased with increasing grade level. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfant and Child DevelopmentSame topicStuttering Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207