Children’s Social Cognitions:Physically and Relationally Aggressive Strategiesand Children’s Goals in Peer Conflict Situations
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
The relation between goals and strategies for conflict resolution of children in the 4th through 6th grades were assessed using self-report questionnaires (N 273). Prosocial strategies were positively correlated with relationship and equality goals, whereas aggressive strategies (physical and relational) were related to self-interest, control, and revenge goals. Relationally aggressive strategies were more strongly associated with the goals of avoiding trouble and maintaining relationships among the peer group than were physically aggressive strategies. Also, boys were more likely to endorse physically aggressive strategies, whereas girls reported greater endorsement of prosocial strategies, but no gender differences were discovered in children’s ratings of relationally aggressive strategies. Results are discussed in terms of the relevance of children’s social cognitions to the study of physically and relationally aggressive behavior.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 it