Executive functioning moderates associations between shyness and pragmatic abilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract While elevated shyness is associated with weaker pragmatic language abilities for some children, not all shy children demonstrate pragmatic challenges. Understanding the factors that may account for this variability is important as proficient pragmatic abilities have been found to protect shy children from subsequent socio‐emotional maladjustment (Coplan & Weeks, 2009). Individual differences in cognitive processes may account for why some shy children evidence difficulty in pragmatic abilities whereas others do not. In the current study, associations between shyness, executive functioning (performance‐based and parent‐reported), and pragmatic abilities (knowledge and demonstrated abilities) were examined in a community sample of 8 to 12‐year‐old children (N = 81). Consistent with past work, shyness was associated with weaker pragmatic knowledge. However, parent‐reported executive functioning moderated associations between shyness and both pragmatic knowledge and demonstrated pragmatic abilities in everyday activities. Only those shy children with weaker parent‐reported executive functioning showed difficulties in their pragmatic abilities. That is, strength in applying executive functioning in everyday settings (or less executive dysfunction) seems to buffer shy children from pragmatic challenges. We discuss our results in terms of the way children acquire pragmatic competence and the temperamental and cognitive factors that may affect such development.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".