Popularity in the Peer Group and Victimization Within Friendship Cliques During Early Adolescence
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
Victimization has been primarily studied within the broader peer group, leaving other potentially important contexts, such as friendship cliques, unexplored. This study examined the role of popularity in identifying protective factors that buffer against victimization within early adolescents’ ( N = 387) friendship cliques. Previously identified protective factors that buffer against victimization within the broader peer group were examined as moderators in the link between popularity and victimization within the friendship clique. Results showed that peer-group features operated as either vulnerability or protective factors, depending upon popularity, gender, and the form of victimization. At higher levels of popularity, receiving social support from clique members operated as a vulnerability factor for overt victimization, whereas preference served a protective function. Prosocial behavior directed toward clique members was protective against relational victimization for girls who were higher in popularity, but was a vulnerability factor for boys who were higher in popularity.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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