Developmental changes in gender composition of friendship networks in adolescent girls and boys.
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
This article describes both normative changes and individual differences in the gender composition of girls' and boys' friendship networks across adolescence and predicts variations in these changes. It also examines changes in the characteristics (context, age difference, closeness, and support) of same- and other-sex friendships in the network. Girls and boys (N=390) were interviewed annually from Grades 6 to 10 (76% retention). Growth in the proportion of other-sex friends was significantly more pronounced for girls and was related to different predictors for girls and boys. Moreover, over time, girls had other-sex friends that were increasingly older than themselves, and most of these friendships took place outside of the school, which was not the case for boys. Growth in the proportion of other-sex friends was more pronounced for secondary than for best friends. Finally, both girls and boys reported receiving higher levels of help from girls than from boys. These findings suggest that other-sex friendships might place some of the girls on a problematic developmental trajectory.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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