Age differences in the prevalence of physical aggression among 5–11‐year‐old Canadian boys and girls
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
It has been proven extremely difficult in the past to estimate the prevalence of physical aggression in children for two main reasons: (a) a heterogeneous sampling of behaviors (i.e., mix between physically aggressive and non-physically aggressive antisocial behaviors), and (b) a lack of a "gold standard" to identify children who exhibit physically aggressive behaviors on a frequent basis. The goal of this study was to test for age differences in the prevalence of physical aggression in the Canadian population of school-aged boys and girls, using cross-sectional data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY). The first wave of the NLSCY included a representative sample of 12,292 Canadian children aged 5-11 years. We used latent class analysis to identify children whose propensity to exhibit physically aggressive behaviors was much higher than that of other children of the same age and sex in the population. The prevalence of physical aggression was estimated at 3.7% in 5-11-year-old boys and ranged from .5% to 2.3% in 11 and 5-year-old girls, respectively. Hence, the results show a decreasing trend in the prevalence of physical aggression with age for girls, but not for boys. These findings suggest the importance of considering the developmental pathways of physical aggression for boys and girls separately.
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