A Cross-National Comparison of Children’s Behavior with their Friends in Situations of Potential Conflict
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dyads of 8- and 9-year-old friends and nonfriends in Central Italy and English Canada were observed while participating in two structured tasks designed to simulate everyday situations of potential conflict. In discussing how they might share a single chocolate egg with a toy inside, Italian youngsters made fewer proposals in all, but nonetheless were able to achieve a greater discrepancy between initial and final negotiating positions. Friends spent almost twice as much time as nonfriends in these discussions; friends also displayed greater novelty and compromise in their counterproposals. Italian girls made significantly fewer proposals and counterproposals than other participants in the study. When participating in a fast-paced car race, Canadian children committed significantly more infractions of the rules. Italian friends were more involved in the race and maintained respect for the rules better than Italian nonfriends, but there were no significant differences between friends and nonfriends in Canada. These results are interpreted in light of known differences between the cultures.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".