Transactional analysis of the reciprocal links between peer experiences and academic achievement from middle childhood to early adolescence.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study tested a transactional model of reciprocal influences regarding students' peer experiences (peer acceptance, peer rejection, and friends' academic achievement) and students' academic achievement from middle childhood to early adolescence. This longitudinal model was tested on 452 students (198 girls), mostly Caucasian and French speaking, who were assessed yearly from Grades 2 through 7. Structural equation models revealed that, for boys and for girls, higher academic achievement predicted (a) increases in peer acceptance from Grades 2 through 6, (b) decreases in peer rejection from Grades 2 through 4 (through Grade 5 for girls), and (c) increases in friends' achievement from Grades 4 through 7. Also, rejection predicted decreases in academic achievement from Grades 3 through 5. These results suggest that academic achievement is a good predictor of peer group status in middle childhood and that high-achieving students start selecting each other as friends as they enter early adolescence. These data also suggest that peer rejection in childhood may disrupt future academic achievement. Possible mediating mechanisms, as well as peer selection and influences in the context of social development, are discussed.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".