A cross‐cultural examination of Aboriginal and European Canadian mothers' beliefs regarding proactive and reactive aggression
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 The purpose of the present study was to examine the maternal beliefs and practices regarding preschool children's proactive and reactive aggression, within a cross‐cultural framework. Participants included 30 Aboriginal and 45 European Canadian mothers of preschoolers who provided their emotional reactions, causal attributions, socialization strategies, and parenting goals in response to children's aggressive behaviours. Results supported previous research that both groups of mothers generally responded negatively to both types of aggression, although there were differences in the extent of negative emotional responses expressed by mothers in the two cultures depending on the type of aggression. Mothers believed that reactive aggression was due to more external causes than proactive aggression and generally used more power assertive strategies in response to proactive versus reactive aggression. Aboriginal mothers were less anxious and used less power assertive strategies than European Canadian mothers. These findings speak to the importance of examining both similarities and differences in mother's beliefs and practices across cultures. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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