Différences garçons-filles en matière de prosocialité
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Gender differences in children’s prosociality The purpose of this study consists of an analysis of gender differences in children’s prosociality. Many studies demonstrate that teachers perceive girls as being more prosocial than boys, but data collected with children do not clearly support this tendency (Bernzweig, Eisenberg, & Fabes, 1993 ; Bouchard, Gravel, & Cloutier, accepted ; Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998 ; Phillipsen, Bridges, McLemore, & Soprano, 1999 ; Porath, 1998 ; Shigetomi, Hartmann, & Gelfand, 1981 ; Smedje, Bromar, Hetta, & von Knorring, 1999). In order to explain this discrepancy among assessment tools of children’s prosociality, three spheres are focussed on : a) differences between boys’ and girls’ behaviours in the classroom ; b) perceptual biases due to the respective social roles of the two sexes ; c) girls’ linguistic superiority. An integration of these avenues is proposed in order to determine the phenomenon of prosociality in children.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.002 |
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".