Status and Gender Differences in Early Adolescents' Descriptions of Popularity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study examined gender and status differences among sixth through eighth grade early adolescents' (N = 387) descriptions of what it means to be popular. More boys than girls specified being cool , athletic , funny , and defiant/risky , whereas more girls than boys identified wearing nice clothing , being attractive , mean , snobby , rude , and sociable as descriptors of popularity. Descriptions also varied as a function of the individual's status: adolescents who were perceived as popular described popularity primarily in positive terms, whereas adolescents perceived as average and unpopular used both positive and negative terms. Compared with their same‐gender peers, more popular boys indicated being cool , attractive , and athletic , whereas more popular girls specified being athletic and liked . Compared with popular girls, more average girls used the terms mean and conceited in their descriptions, whereas more average and unpopular girls indicated the term snobby . This study illustrates the complexity and variability in early adolescents' social constructions of popularity.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it