Does the desire to conform to peers moderate links between popularity and indirect victimization in early adolescence?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study of 426 Canadian early adolescents (Mage = 12.52; 53% girls) investigated whether associations between popularity and indirect victimization (i.e., reputational victimization, exclusion) varied as a function of gender and the desire to conform to characteristics and competencies that are valued within the peer group (i.e., peer conformity goals). Regression analyses revealed popularity was uniquely and positively associated with reputational victimization, but was not significantly related to exclusion after accounting for the effects of meanness and likeability. The associations between popularity and indirect victimization were moderated by peer conformity goals and gender. The results indicated that popular girls with high peer conformity goals experienced more reputational victimization and exclusion than popular girls with low peer conformity goals. However, popular boys with high peer conformity goals experienced less exclusion than popular boys with low peer conformity goals. The findings suggest that peer conformity goals carry with them some risks for popular girls, but may serve a protective function for popular boys.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".