GENDER DIFFERENCES IN CHARACTER STRENGTHS, SOCIAL CONNECTIONS, AND BELIEFS ABOUT CRIME AMONG ADOLESCENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most gang-involved youth inCanada are predominantly males (94%) andbetween the age of 16 and 18 (Youth Gangs inCanada, 2007). However, young adolescent girls are now increasingly seen among youth gangs (Girls, Gangs, andSexual Exploitation inBritish Columbia, 2010). Within the strength-basedframework for research targeting social problems such as youth violence andcriminal gang activities (Tweed, Bhatt, Dooley, Spindlier, Douglas, Viljoen,2011), a study was conducted in local high schools inBritish Columbia;Canada,in which 194 boys and 226 girls aged 12 to 14 participated.The results of thepreliminary analyses of the data indicated several gender differences among theparticipants’ character strengths, social connections, and cognitive beliefspertaining to violence. Boys in comparison to girls, reported a higher level ofself-esteem, and a stronger belief in violence as a way to deal with conflicts.Girls reported higher satisfaction in the area of friendship than boys.Additionally, girls reported higher levels of parental monitoring of where theywere, who they werewith and what they were doing. These preliminary findingssuggest that prevention strategies would serve the youth well when they arederived from a targeted gendered strategies with a focus on a strength-basedapproach for a positive adolescent development.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".