MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3086317388 · doi:10.1111/bjdp.12347

Shyness and empathy in early childhood: Examining links between feelings of empathy and empathetic behaviours

2020· article· en· W3086317388 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

VenueBritish Journal of Developmental Psychology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShynessEmpathyPsychologyProsocial behaviorFeelingDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although shy children have been described as less empathetic than their more sociable peers, this may be due to a performance rather than a competence deficit. The aim of this study was to explore the moderating role of shyness in the association between empathic feelings and empathic‐related reactions. Participants were 212 preschoolers ( M age = 58.32 months, SD = 10.72). Children provided self‐reports of empathetic feelings, parents rated child shyness and empathic behaviours (e.g., reparative behaviours), and teachers assessed indices of socio‐emotional functioning (e.g., prosocial behaviours). Results revealed interaction effects between empathic feelings and shyness in the prediction of outcome variables. Among children with lower levels of shyness, empathy rated by children was positively related to empathetic and reparative behaviours (rated by parents) and prosocial behaviours (rated by teachers). At higher levels of shyness, these relations were attenuated. These results can be interpreted to suggest that although shy children may not differ from their more sociable counterparts in experiencing empathy, they seem to be less likely to act empathically.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.255
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.250 · 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