Sex differences in reactions to outperforming same‐sex friends
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
The current studies were designed to examine whether female adolescents have more negative reactions than male adolescents to achieving more than their same‐sex friends. In Study 1, 51 females and 48 males from grades 8 and 10 were administered questions assessing their reactions to performing better than their closest same‐sex friends in four domains. Across domains, females reported more negative reactions than males. Further, compared with males, female participants believed that their same‐sex friends would have more negative reactions if they performed better than their friends. In Study 2, 48 females and 49 males age 18 years were asked how they felt about performing better than and equal to their closest same‐sex friends in the domains of romance and academics in both hypothetical and actual situations. Females reported feeling more positive when they received the same outcomes as opposed to better outcomes than their friends. Males did not differ in the valence of their responses to the two outcomes. The implications for sex differences in achievement and friendship are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it