Sex Differences in the Value of Parents versus Same-Sex Peers
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
The current research examined the hypothesis that males derive greater benefits than females do from cooperation with same-sex peers versus parents. In Study 1, 194 children, early adolescents, older adolescents, and adults from Brussels, Belgium predicted whether parents or same-sex peers would provide more benefits to a typical individual of their same age and sex. Results showed that at all four age levels, compared with females, males predicted that same-sex peers would provide more benefits relative to parents. Study 2 was designed to examine which benefits same-sex peers relative to parents provide more for males than females. In Study 2, 50 young adults from Montreal, Canada were asked to report to what extent same-sex peers and parents satisfied physical needs, fulfilled socioemotional needs, and helped with acquiring societal skills over the past year. Males more than females reported that same-sex peers relative to parents satisfied socioemotional needs and helped with the acquisition of societal skills. Discussion revolves around the hypothesized differential relations of males and females to families versus same-sex peers.
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