Preface: sex differences in the functions and precursors of adolescent aggression
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 volume provides a glimpse into the types of models and research questions that may contribute to our understanding of how best to interpret sex differences in adolescent aggression. In one study the authors contend that, despite changes in how aggression is expressed, the function of aggression remains fixed-to control and dominate relationships through aggressive acts and intimidation. While boys were expected to perpetrate more aggression toward peers than girls, sex differences were not observed in romantic relationships. Pepler's findings are consistent with patterns of domestic violence that have been widely documented during adulthood but only recently investigated in adolescent relationships. Another author raises important questions regarding sex differences in factors that may moderate the rewards (e.g., social status) for adolescents who engage in aggressive behavior. Using self-reports of perceived benefits and costs of physical and relational aggression, Leadbeater et al. found that the benefits of aggressive behavior in terms of perceived social status were similar for boys and girls, but the costs were not: aggressive boys were more likely than girls to be victimized themselves.
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) | 0.000 | 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