MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075401662 · doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.2.244

Do You "Want" to Play? Distinguishing Between Conflicted Shyness and Social Disinterest in Early Childhood.

2004· article· en· W2075401662 on OpenAlexaff
Robert J. Coplan, Kavita Prakash, Kim O’Neil, Mandana Armer

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Psychology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShynessPsychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial competenceSocial anxietySocial inhibitionSocial psychologySocial relationPreferenceAnxietySocial change

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study attempted to distinguish two types of social withdrawal in early childhood: (a) one based on social fear and anxiety despite a desire to interact socially (conflicted shyness) and (b) one based on the lack of a strong motivation to engage in social interaction (social disinterest). Two samples of preschoolers (n = 119 and n = 127) 3-5 years of age participated. Their mothers completed the newly developed Child Social Preference Scale, which was designed to assess conflicted shyness and social disinterest. Maternal ratings of child temperament, parenting style, and social goals, teacher ratings of child social adjustment, observations of child free-play behaviors, and child interview assessments of perceived competence and preference for playing with peers were also collected. Distinct patterns of associations were found between conflicted shyness and social disinterest and outcome variables. Implications for the motivational underpinnings and adjustment outcomes of shyness and social disinterest are explored.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations661
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental PsychologySame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207