Social‐cognitive Competence, Peer Rejection and Neglect, and Behavioral and Emotional Problems in Middle Childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This prospective, longitudinal study examines individual differences in two conceptually related but empirically distinct domains of social‐cognitive competence (cognitive interpretive understanding and interpersonal perspective co‐ordination) as moderators of the relation between peer rejection and neglect and behavioral and emotional problems in grades 2 and 3. As expected, peer rejection and neglect increased risks for behavioral and emotional problems whereas interpretive understanding (understanding of mental states) and perspective co‐ordination (awareness of others' emotions and motives) reduced risks for aggressive, disruptive, inattentive, and anxious, sad, withdrawn behaviors. Assumptions that awareness of others' perspectives bestows consistent benefits for children experiencing peer problems were challenged. Unexpectedly, rejection and neglect increased risks for behavioral and emotional problems for children who demonstrated average and high levels of perspective co‐ordination. More advanced perspective co‐ordination may heighten children's sensitivity to peer relationship problems and result in general maladjustment, both concurrently and over time. Less advanced perspective co‐ordination may also be responsible for the ‘optimistic bias’ that has been noted in aggressive 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".