Influence of executive functioning difficulties on verbal aggression in adolescents: Moderating effects of winning and losing and increasing and decreasing levels of provocation
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
Abstract We examined the extent to which executive functioning difficulties were related to verbal aggression under conditions of gradually increasing or decreasing provocation over both winning and losing trials. Sixty adolescent boys and girls completed a modified Taylor aggression paradigm in which verbally offensive remarks were sent and received. Results showed (a) that during increasing levels of provocation, verbal aggression increased on both winning and losing trials, (b) that verbal aggression decreased during decreasing levels of provocation but only on losing trials, and (c) that difficulties on two measures of executive functioning were related to verbal aggression, but only in the context of increasing verbal provocation. Individuals with executive functioning difficulties responded with more verbal aggression than did individuals with less severe executive functioning difficulties. Results have implications for the manner in which provocation is studied and for understanding the conditions in which executive functioning difficulties contribute to verbal aggression. Aggr. Behav. 29:475–488, 2003. © 2003 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
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