Gene–environment interaction between peer victimization and child aggression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although peer victimization places children at serious risk for aggressive behavior, not all victimized children are aggressive. The diathesis-stress hypothesis of disease proposes that an environmental stressor such as peer victimization should to lead to maladjustment mostly in those individuals with preexisting genetic vulnerabilities. Accordingly, this study examined whether the link between peer victimization and child aggression is moderated by children's genetic risk for such behavior. Using a sample of 506 6-year-old twins, peer victimization was assessed through peer nominations and aggressive behavior was assessed through peer and teacher reports. Children's genetic risk for aggression was estimated as a function of their co-twin's aggression and the pair's zygosity. Genetic modeling showed that peer victimization is an environmentally driven variable that is unrelated to children's genetic disposition. Results also provided support for the notion of a gene-environment interaction between peer victimization and child's genetic risk for aggressive behavior, albeit only in girls. For boys, peer victimization was related to aggression regardless of the child's genetic risk for such behavior. Different socialization experiences in girls' compared to boys' peer groups may explain the different pattern of results for girls and boys.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".