Attribution of human characteristics and bullying involvement in childhood: Distinguishing between targets
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
This investigation researched the association between the attribution of human characteristics and bullying involvement in children by distinguishing between targets. Study 1 focused on the attribution of human characteristics by bullies, victims, bully/victims, and non-involved children toward friends and non-friends. The data from 405 children (M = 10.7 years old) showed that they attributed fewer prosocial and more antisocial human characteristics to non-friends than to friends. Moreover, boy victims attributed fewer prosocial human characteristics to non-friends than boy bullies and non-involved boys did. In addition, victims attributed more antisocial human characteristics to non-friends than non-involved children did. Study 2 addressed bullies', victims', bully/victims', and non-involved children's attribution of human characteristics to each other. The data of 264 children (M = 10.0 years old) showed that bullies, victims, and bully/victims attributed fewer prosocial and more antisocial human characteristics to each other than to non-involved children. Non-involved children attributed fewer prosocial human characteristics to bully/victims than to bullies and victims, and more antisocial human characteristics to bully/victims than to victims. In addition, girls attributed more prosocial and fewer antisocial human characteristics to girls than to boys, whereas boys did not distinguish between girls and boys. Based on these findings, suggestions for future research are provided and implications for bullying prevention and intervention are discussed. Aggr. Behav. 42:394-403, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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