MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024609125 · doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00039

Response perseveration in adolescent boys with stable and unstable histories of physical aggression: the role of underlying processes

2002· article· en· W2024609125 on OpenAlexaff
Jean R. Séguin, Louise Arseneault, Bernard Boulerice, Philip W. Harden, Richard E. Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsMontreal Children's HospitalUniversité de MontréalResearch Unit on Children's Psychosocial Maladjustment
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerseverationAggressionPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyNeuroticismCognitionPersonalitySocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: It was unclear whether response perseveration and underlying processes, often related to antisocial externalizing disorders, were also related to histories of physical aggression. METHOD: Boys of age 13 years were selected on the basis of childhood histories of physical aggression: stable, unstable, and non-aggressive. Performance on a Card Playing Task provided a perseveration index. RESULTS: Physical aggression, regardless of history, predicted perseveration in adolescence. However, qualitative differences revealed that Neuroticism increased the risk for perseveration only in the unstable aggressive group relative to the other groups. Perseveration in the stable aggressive group maybe related to a more fundamental information-processing deficit. CONCLUSION: The identification of these processes has implications for developmental theories of physical aggression; they may help discriminate those children who show early physical aggression and who will remain aggressive from those who will only show occasional physical aggression during later childhood.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations55
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child Psychology and PsychiatrySame topicBullying, Victimization, and AggressionFrench-language works237,207