MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169313030 · doi:10.1177/0165025413486418

Finding the roots of adolescent aggressive behaviour

2013· article· en· W2169313030 on OpenAlexaff
Fabienne Glowacz, Marie‐Hélène Véronneau, Sylvie Boët, Michel Born

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Behavioral Development · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAggressionDevelopmental psychologyNormativeStructural equation modelingCognitionEarly childhoodPoison controlPerceptionLongitudinal studyChild developmentInjury prevention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aggressive behaviours in adolescence often originate in early development. This study tested three longitudinal pathways starting in early childhood, in a sample of 325 Belgian participants (162 girls) assessed every 1 or 2 years from birth through age 14. Structural equation models supported the “mother early dissatisfaction” pathway toward adolescent aggression, but neither the “cognitive functioning” nor the “early aggressive behaviour” pathway gained clear support. Mother’s early dissatisfaction with her child was the starting point of a series of negative perceptions of the child, which predicted physical and social aggression in adolescence. Children’s cognitive functioning and early aggression level were weakly correlated with mother’s perceptions. This finding suggests that explaining normative development to parents may improve mothers’ perceptions of their early experience as a mother, of their child, and of their subsequent interactions, which may reduce their child’s future aggressive behaviours.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Behavioral DevelopmentSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207