MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172220892 · doi:10.1111/cdep.12131

When One Is Company and Two Is a Crowd: Why Some Children Prefer Solitude

2015· article· en· W2172220892 on OpenAlexafffund
Robert J. Coplan, Laura L. Ooi, Gabriella Nocita

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Development Perspectives · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaSocial Science Research Council
KeywordsSolitudePsychologyPreferenceSocial psychologySocial anxietyDevelopmental psychologyPersonalitySocial relationAnxietyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this article, we examine research on conceptualizing and assessing individual differences in children's preference for solitude. Social withdrawal is typically defined as the process whereby a child removes himself or herself from opportunities for social interaction with peers. Most research has focused on shy children (whose retreat into solitude is driven by social fear or anxiety), but some children may instead prefer solitary activities. We aim to clarify the distinction between unsociability (i.e., a nonfearful affinity for solitude) and social avoidance (i.e., a preference for solitude driven by actively avoiding social interaction). We also provide suggestions for further research, drawing on related perspectives from personality and clinical psychology.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations116
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild Development PerspectivesSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207