Gender‐Differentiated Experience in the Peer Culture: Links to Intimacy in Preadolescence
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
This study tested claims that gender differences in intimacy are attributable to gender‐differentiated experiences in the peer culture (i.e., male and female ‘worlds’). Participants were 188 Canadian preadolescents (10–12 years, 106 girls) who completed questionnaires regarding the intimacy of their same‐sex best friendship, intimate support received from peers, and two dimensions of culture–gender composition of the friendship network and participation in communal (i.e., intimacy‐promoting) and agentic (intimacy‐repressing) activities. Consistent with the ‘two worlds’ explanation (a) communal activity participation related positively and team sports negatively to same‐sex friendship intimacy, but the latter only for boys, and (b) having other‐sex friends predicted same‐sex friendship intimacy for boys but not girls. The two worlds explanation, though supported, requires revision to accommodate findings that male and female preadolescents’ activity participation overlapped considerably, intimate friendships were not limited to intimate contexts, agentic activities potentiated both agentic and communal goals, and peer cultural variables predicted intimacy better for boys than girls.
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) | 0.001 | 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