Mixed‐Gender Groups, Dating, and Romantic Relationships in Early Adolescence
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
This study examined dating‐stage and developmental‐contextual models of romantic relationships during early adolescence. Same‐gender friendships, affiliation with mixed‐gender groups, dating, and romantic relationships were investigated in a sample of 1,284 young adolescents of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds. Data were collected cross‐sectionally in Grades 5 through 8, as well as longitudinally in the fall and spring of an academic year. Consistent with a stage model, affiliation with mixed‐gender groups and dating were qualitatively distinct activities that were sequentially organized and facilitated the progression from same‐gender friendships to dyadic romantic relationships. The results also provide insights on how the developmental context may alter stage pathways: Dating activities were incorporated with mixed‐gender affiliations, group‐based romantic stages showed more stability than other stages, and the ethnocultural context influenced romantic timing. Finally, results indicated that participation in romantic activities heightened adolescents' future interest in having a romantic relationship.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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