Distinguishing children who form new best-friendships from those who do not
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three groups were identified using best-friendship nominations at two time points surrounding the transition to middle school (Time 1: Spring of 5th grade; Time 2: Fall of 6th grade): (i) children who had no best-friendship at Time 1, but had a best-friendship at Time 2 (best-friendship gain; N = 109); (ii) children who had no best-friendship at either Time 1 or 2 (chronically best-friendless; N = 105); and (iii) children with a best-friendship at both Times 1 and 2, but with different peers at each time (best-friendship change; N = 120). Peer nominations of social behaviors and victimization were collected at Times 1 and 2. Findings suggest that attraction to similar others, in addition to increased displays of prosocial behaviors, facilitate the formation of new best-friendships for both initially best-friendless and best-friended 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".