MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058605589 · doi:10.1177/0956797614525642

Testosterone Reactivity to Provocation Mediates the Effect of Early Intervention on Aggressive Behavior

2014· article· en· W2058605589 on OpenAlexaff
Justin M. Carré, Anne‐Marie R. Iselin, Keith M. Welker, Ahmad R. Hariri, Kenneth A. Dodge

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsNipissing University
FundersNational Institute on Drug Abuse
KeywordsPsychologyAggressionPsychosocialProvocation testDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyIntervention (counseling)Reactivity (psychology)Testosterone (patch)Poison controlPsychotherapistPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We tested the hypotheses that the Fast Track intervention program for high-risk children would reduce adult aggressive behavior and that this effect would be mediated by decreased testosterone responses to social provocation. Participants were a subsample of males from the full trial sample, who during kindergarten had been randomly assigned to the 10-year Fast Track intervention or to a control group. The Fast Track program attempted to develop children's social competencies through child social-cognitive and emotional-coping skills training, peer-relations coaching, academic tutoring, and classroom management, as well as training for parents to manage their child's behavior. At a mean age of 26 years, participants responded to laboratory provocations. Results indicated that, relative to control participants, men assigned to the intervention demonstrated reduced aggression and testosterone reactivity to social provocations. Moreover, reduced testosterone reactivity mediated the effect of intervention on aggressive behavior, which provides evidence for an enduring biological mechanism underlying the effect of early psychosocial intervention on aggressive behavior in adulthood.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.769
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.346 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological ScienceSame topicBullying, Victimization, and AggressionFrench-language works237,207