Self and peer perceptions of childhood behaviour in the prediction of adult outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous investigations of the longitudinal outcomes of childhood aggression, social withdrawal and likeability have relied on the reports of a single observer, or combined the results of several observers in the prediction of adult outcomes. By comparing self and peer perceptions of childhood behaviour, the present studies proposed to clarify the nature of the relation between childhood behaviours and adult outcomes. Four questions were examined being (1) how were childhood behaviour patterns related to adult outcomes; (2) how did self and peer perceptions compare in the prediction of adult outcomes; (3) was the relation between self and peer perspectives additive in the prediction of these outcomes; and (4) did concordance between self and peer perspectives predict adult outcomes? Data from the Concordia Risk Project were employed to determine the socioeconomic, personality, and substance abuse outcomes. Both self and peer perceptions of childhood behaviour were associated with adult outcomes, although generally, self perceptions as opposed to peer perceptions of childhood behaviours were more strongly associated with adult outcomes in women. Including both self and peer perceptions did not have an additive effect in the prediction of adult outcomes, although there was some support for the importance of concordance in education and income outcomes. The findings suggest that self and peer perceptions of childhood behaviour each provide some unique information. Future research examining the adult outcomes of childhood behaviours may wish to consider both the gender and the behaviour being examined in designing prospective, longitudinal studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".