MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2988314729 · doi:10.1080/00221325.2019.1687418

Theory of Mind, Self-Knowledge, and Perceptions of Loneliness in Emerging Adolescents

2019· article· en· W2988314729 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sandra Bosacki, Flavia Pissoto Moreira, Valentina Sitnik, Katherine Andrews, Victoria Talwar

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Genetic Psychology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLonelinessFriendshipPsychologyTheory of mindOptimal distinctiveness theoryPerceptionDevelopmental psychologyMental healthSocial cognitionAgency (philosophy)Self-conceptCognitionSelfSocial psychologySelf-knowledgeSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Theory of Mind (ToM) or the ability to understand mental states in self and others to explain behavior continues to develop in adolescence and connects to social experiences. Research shows during adolescence, ToM may influence one’s ability to evaluate and judge one’s self-worth and their social interactions. However, few studies examine the associations among self-knowledge, ToM, and social experiences. This study explored individual differences and associations among 146 Canadian adolescents’ ToM, self-knowledge, and loneliness (86 females; Mage = 13.2 years). Self-report questionnaires and semi-structured interviews measured ToM, self-knowledge, and perceptions of friendship quality, social preferences, and loneliness. Results showed higher levels of ToM were related to lower ratings of self-perceived physical appearance, global self-worth, and loneliness. Compared to boys, girls with higher levels of ToM reported a more comprehensive understanding of self-distinctiveness and agency, although they felt less lonely. Implications for developmental social cognitive theory and mental health education are discussed.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations55
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Genetic PsychologySame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207