Social Interactions With Familiar and Unfamiliar Peers in Chinese Children: Relations With Social, School, and Psychological Adjustment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined how interactions with familiar and unfamiliar peers were associated with social, school, and psychological adjustment in Chinese children. A sample of children ( N = 256, 104 boys and 152 girls, M age = 11 years, ranging from 9 to 13 years) engaged in free play sessions in quartets consisting of 2 pairs of familiar children. Information on the relative proportion of time spent interacting with familiar, unfamiliar, and mixed peers was obtained from videotaped observations. Data on social (e.g., leadership, victimization), school (e.g., school competence, learning problems), and psychological (e.g., perceived self-worth, depression) adjustment were collected from multiple sources including teacher ratings, self-reports, and school records. The results showed that interaction with familiar peers was positively associated with social and school competence and negatively associated with social, behavioral, and learning problems. Interaction with mixed familiar and unfamiliar peers was positively associated with indexes of psychological adjustment and negatively associated with psychological problems. In addition, interaction with unfamiliar peers was infrequent and not associated with adjustment or problems. The results indicate that social interactions with different types of peers may reflect different aspects of competence among Chinese children.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".