Competitive Goal Orientations, Quality, and Stability in Gifted and Other Adolescents' Friendships
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".