Peer Victimization and Social Dominance as Intervening Variables of the Link Between Peer Liking and Relational Aggression
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
The current study examined social dominance and peer victimization as possible intervening and moderating variables of the association between peer liking and relational aggression because previous findings suggest that social dominance and peer victimization are important for predicting the acceptableness and success of aggression. A total of 367 5th- and 6th-grade students from Quebec, Canada, completed peer ratings of their classmates on measures of peer liking, relational aggression, social dominance, and peer victimization. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses demonstrated that peer victimization worked as a mediator and a moderator, such that victimization explained the link between peer liking and relational aggression, and that this association was only significant at high levels of peer victimization. Alternatively, social dominance worked as a suppressor, with the link between peer liking and relational aggression becoming stronger once social dominance was controlled in the multiple regression. Social dominance did not moderate the same association.
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 | 0.001 | 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