Impact de deux interventions visant à améliorer la compétence sociale chez des enfants agressifs à la maternelle.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study was to test the impact of two interventions designed to promote social competence in agressive kindergartners. A sample of 182 agressive students (69% boys) were randomly assigned to three conditions: a) an intervention promoting social competence in classrooms (PSC); b) PSC intervention combined with a dyadic peer intervention (PSC DPI), and c) control. The impact of these interventions were assessed using parent and teacher ratings, direct observations of behaviours and individual interviews with the children. After the end of the interventions, children in the two experimental conditions showed better social problem solving skills compared to control children. Direct observations indicated that boys in the PSC condition and girls in the PSC DPI condition were more incline to propose an idea to their peers. A marginal increase is also found for cooperation in the two experimental conditions. Overall, the impact of the PSC DPI condition is not superior to the PSC only condition. These findings are discussed in the context of other similar prevention programs and the characteristics of effectiveness studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".