MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084147126 · doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.4.656

Reticent behavior and experiences in peer interactions in Chinese and Canadian children.

2006· article· en· W2084147126 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Xinyin Chen, Amanda DeSouza, Huichang Chen, Li Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Psychology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaWilliam T. Grant Foundation
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyObservational studyChinaInterpersonal relationshipSocial psychologyPeer groupSocial relationSample (material)Medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, the authors examined relations between reticent behavior in unfamiliar peer situations and experiences in interactions in Chinese and Canadian children. Observational data were collected from samples of children at 4 years of age in the People's Republic of China and Canada. The results indicated that relations between reticent behavior and peer initiations were similar in the 2 samples. The differences between the samples were mainly in peer responses. Reticent behavior was associated with peer rejection such as overt refusal and disagreement in the Canadian sample but with positive responses such as approval in the Chinese sample, particularly when children made low-power initiations. The results suggest that reticent children in China and Canada may have similar as well as different experiences in social interactions.

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)0.004
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 score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations150
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental PsychologySame topicBullying, Victimization, and AggressionFrench-language works237,207