Good friendships, bad friends: Friendship factors as moderators of the relation between aggression and social information processing
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
The primary objective was to examine whether the associations between aggression and social information processing was moderated by friendship quality and the aggressiveness of the best friend. Drawn from a larger normative sample of 5th and 6th graders, 385 children (180 boys) completed questionnaires pertaining to friendship quality and social information processing. Friendship and peer nominations of behaviours were collected. Results revealed positive associations between aggressive behaviour and the endorsement of aggressive coping strategies in cases where the protagonist was an unfamiliar peer. However, one important exception emerged: no significant associations between aggression and aggressive coping were revealed for children with high-quality friendships with aggressive peers. In cases where the protagonist was the best friend, there was a significant relation between aggression and vengeful coping, but only for those participants who had a low-quality friendship with an aggressive friend.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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