MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2182595036 · doi:10.1177/147470490900700201

Sex Differences in the Use of Indirect Aggression in Adult Canadians

2009· article· en· W2182595036 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolutionary Psychology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAggressionPsychologyVerbal aggressionDevelopmental psychologyPopulationInjury preventionPoison controlClinical psychologyDemographyMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evolutionary psychologists have argued that the emergence of language was associated with reducing direct physical aggression and easing social functioning in small groups. If this is so, then males should use verbal or indirect aggression more frequently than females since they engage in more direct aggression. A recent study found no significant differences between men and women's self-reports of indirect aggression in a U.K. sample. We administered the same questionnaire to 175 male and 311 female Canadian university students. Men in this population reported using indirect aggression more frequently than women. The Canadian participants generally reported using indirect aggression less frequently than the U.K. study sample did, particularly the women. These results suggest that there are cultural differences in adults' frequency of use of indirect aggression. We review a number of possible reasons to account for these different results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.270 · 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