Peer Victimization and Social Dominance as Intervening Variables of the Link Between Peer Liking and Relational Aggression
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".