MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Gender differences in the behavioral associates of loneliness and social dissatisfaction in kindergarten

2007· article· en· W2032308901 on OpenAlexaff
Robert J. Coplan, Leanna M. Closson, Kimberley A. Arbeau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLonelinessPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyBehavioral inhibitionSocial relationSocial psychologyAnxietyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Much of the evidence suggesting that loneliness is a risk factor for socio-emotional adjustment difficulties comes from studies with older children and adolescents. Comparatively less is known about the mental health implications of loneliness in early childhood. The goals of the present study were to provide additional convergent validity of the Loneliness and Social Dissatisfaction Questionnaire for Young Children (Cassidy & Asher, 1992) and explore potential gender differences in relations between loneliness and behavior problems in early childhood. METHODS: A multiple source assessment of 139 kindergarten-aged children (M(age) = 64.76 mos., SD = 4.48) was undertaken, including parental ratings, behavioral observations, child interviews, and teacher ratings. RESULTS: Overall, loneliness was positively associated with anxiety, aggression, and peer exclusion. However, several gender differences were also observed. CONCLUSIONS: Loneliness may be a marker variable for both early internalizing and externalizing problems. However, gender differences in the behavioral associates of loneliness are also evident.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations198
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child Psychology and PsychiatrySame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207