The Usual Suspects? A Comparative Investigation of Crowds and Social-type Labelling among Young British Teenagers
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
In the USA, reputation-based crowds (as opposed to interaction-based cliques) are a widespread, and widely reported, dimension of adolescent peer relations. To date, there is no such British literature. As part of a larger study, some 460 British secondary school pupils were asked to identify major groupings at school. Crowds accounted for almost half of all the groupings reported. While there was evidence of the usual panoply of these social type labels reported in the USA, such as Populars, Brains, and Toughies, there were also clear differences, not only between British and US crowds (e.g. a noticeable absence of Jocks and Outcasts in the British case) but also between schools, with some very distinctive, highly localized social identification units. With some evidence of ethnically oriented affiliations, these seemed to be more at the level of cliques than crowds and were very much less prevalent than anticipated by existing literature.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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