MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888308120 · doi:10.1177/2167696818792989

“Drama” in Interpersonal Conflict and Interactions Among Emerging Adults: A Qualitative Focus Group Study

2018· article· en· W2888308120 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEmerging Adulthood · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDramaInterpersonal communicationPsychologyHarmSocial psychologyAggressionFocus groupThematic analysisContext (archaeology)Developmental psychologyInterpersonal relationshipQualitative researchSociologySocial scienceLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drama is a term used in popular culture to refer to interpersonal conflict that arises when individuals overreact to events and are overly emotional. The current study investigated emerging adults’ perspectives of drama, the context in which it occurs, and how drama relates to similar social interactions such as conflict, bullying, and relational aggression. University students ( N = 53; 18–25 years old) participated in eight same-sex focus groups. Using thematic analysis, seven main themes were found, suggesting that “drama” (a) refers to a wide range of situations, (b) is often associated with negative social interactions, and (c) harm and consequences, (d) is generally perceived as unnecessary, (e) exaggerated, and (f) involving females, and (g) frequently offers a learning experience. Findings suggest that future research should continue to explore drama as its own construct and that drama should be addressed more formally given how youth may be impacted by such incidents.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it