Subtypes of aggressive behaviors: A developmental perspective
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
Aggressive behaviors in children and adolescents have undergone important conceptual and definitional modifications in the past two decades. In particular, subtypes of aggression have been proposed that separate the form and the function of the aggressive behaviors (i.e., social vs. physical aggression; reactive vs. proactive aggression). Moreover, new methodological tools have been developed to examine the developmental course of these subtypes, as well as their correlates. These conceptual and methodological innovations, in turn, have introduced new views of the development of aggressive behaviors. These “new views” contrast with more traditional perspectives about the evolution of aggressive behaviors from infancy to young adulthood, particularly with respect to the existence of individuals who begin to become aggressive by adolescence only. This article gives an overview of these definitional, conceptual, and methodological innovations. It also tries to reconcile different views about the development of aggressive behaviors from infancy through early adulthood. Theoretical and practical/clinical implications are also reviewed. The conclusion describes an integrative framework and identifies possible areas of research for the future.
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) | 0.002 | 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