Social Self-Perception Among Pediatric Brain Tumor Survivors Compared With Peers
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
OBJECTIVE: To assess self-perceptions of social behavior among children treated for a brain tumor and comparison children. To investigate group differences in the accuracy of children's self-perceptions as measured by discrepancies between self and peer reports of social behavior and to understand if these phenomena differ by gender. METHOD: Self and peer reports of social behavior were obtained in the classrooms of 116 children who were treated for an intracranial tumor. Social behaviors were assessed using the Revised Class Play, which generates indices for 5 behavioral subscales: Leadership-popularity, Prosocial, Aggressive-disruptive, Sensitive-isolated, and Victimization. A child matched for gender, race, and age was selected from each survivor's classroom to serve as a comparison. Abbreviated IQ scores were obtained in participants' homes. RESULTS: Relative to comparison children, those who had undergone treatment for a brain tumor overestimated their level of Leadership-popularity and underestimated levels of Sensitive-isolated behaviors and Victimization by peers. Female survivors were more likely than male survivors to underestimate Sensitive-isolated behaviors and Victimization. CONCLUSION: Following treatment for a brain tumor, children (particularly girls) may be more likely than healthy children to underestimate peer relationship difficulties. These discrepancies should be considered when obtaining self-report from survivors and developing interventions to improve social functioning.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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