MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136376412 · doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00040

Reactively and proactively aggressive children: antecedent and subsequent characteristics

2002· article· en· W2136376412 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalResearch Unit on Children's Psychosocial Maladjustment
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntecedent (behavioral psychology)AggressionPsychologyTemperamentDevelopmental psychologyInjury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlClinical psychologyPersonalitySocial psychologyMedical emergencyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Reactive and proactive subtypes of aggressive 10-11-12-year-old children were compared with non-aggressive children to examine whether the two forms of aggression were differentially related to antecedent and subsequent measures. METHOD: A large community sample of boys and girls was used. Reactive and proactive aggression was measured through teacher ratings when the children were 10, 11 and 12 years old. Antecedent measures were age 6 temperament and behavioral dispositions; subsequent measures were age 13 delinquency and depressive symptoms. RESULTS: Results indicated that reactive and proactive children had distinctive profiles on antecedent and subsequent measures. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that children characterized by reactive or proactive aggression differ on several dimensions of personal functioning, and that reactive and proactive aggression are distinct forms of aggression, although both co-occur in a large proportion of aggressive children.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it