Developmental trajectories of peer-reported aggressive behavior: The role of friendship understanding, friendship quality, and friends’ aggressive behavior.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate developmental trajectories in peer-reported aggressive behavior across the transition from elementary-to-middle school, and whether aggressive behavior trajectories were associated with friendship quality, friends' aggressive behavior, and the ways in which children think about their friendships. METHOD: grade). Peer nominations were used to assess the target child's and friend's aggressive behavior. Self- and friend reports were used to measure friendship quality; friendship understanding was assessed via a structured interview. RESULTS: General Growth Mixture Modeling (GGMM) revealed three distinct trajectories of peer-reported aggressive behavior across the school transition: low-stable, decreasing, and increasing. Adolescents' understanding of friendship formation differentiated the decreasing from the low-stable aggressive behavior trajectories, and the understanding of friendship trust differentiated the increasing from the low-stable aggressive and decreasing aggressive behavior trajectories. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicated that a sophisticated understanding of friendship may serve as a protective factor for initially aggressive adolescents as they transition into middle school. Promoting a deepened understanding of friendship relations and their role in one's own and others' well-being may serve as an important prevention and intervention strategy to reduce aggressive behavior.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".