Competitive Goal Orientations, Quality, and Stability in Gifted and Other Adolescents' Friendships
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
Competitive goal orientations were rated by self, peers, and teachers for 38 gifted- and 38 regular-program, same-sex, friendship dyads (19 female and 19 male) from grades 7 and 8 (N = 152). Gifted dyads were reassessed on friendship quality and stability at the end of the school year and after the summer. Gifted students were more task-oriented and comparison students more other-referenced. Task-orientation was related to fewer friendship conflicts, more friendly competition, and, for gifted students, greater friendship stability. Being other-referenced was related to negative friendship qualities and unstable friendships regardless of sex, grade, or program, and instability in gifted female students' friendships. Friends reporting positive friendship qualities at the end of the school year more likely remained friends over the summer. Comparison group friendships had more numerous positive qualities (companionship, help, security, closeness) than those of gifted adolescents. Competitive goal orientation rather than competition itself affects friendship success.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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