Analysis of Component of Aggression in the Stories of Elementary School Aggressive Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is the content analysis of children’s stories based on the components of aggression. Participants are 66 elementary school students (16 girls and 50 boys) selected from fourth and fifth grades, using the Relational and Overt Aggression Questionnaire; completed by the teachers. Draw a Story Test (Silver, 2005) is administered to select aggressive children who narrates stories based on their drawn pictures in response to DAS pictures. DAS Test consists of a series of figures which children respond by drawing a picture and telling a story related to the picture. This provides us with the information about their self image and emotional content. After deciding the components of aggression based on theories of Crick et al. (1997), and Crick and Dodge (1996), the stories are analyzed using the quantitative content analysis technique. The results reveals that the narrated stories of aggressive children have engagement ratio of 1.62, which means more than 50% of children showed aggressive components. The highest frequency of aggression in their stories is related to murdering, killing and hurting others.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".