The co‐evolution of friendship, defending behaviors, and peer victimization: A short‐term longitudinal social network analysis
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
Abstract Peers are critical influencers of adolescent behavior, including defending against peer victimization. The current research explored peer influence processes associated with four different types of peer‐defending behaviors (comforting, reporting, solution‐focused, and aggressive defending behaviors) within early adolescent friendship networks. Links with peer victimization, friendship ties, and gender were also explored. Data were collected from 334 early adolescents ages 11–14 in Canada. Participants self‐reported on defending behaviors, victimization, and friendships over two time‐points, 8–10 weeks apart. Data were analyzed using Stochastic Actor‐Oriented Models (SAOMs). After controlling for friendship network structure and peer selection for defending behaviors, results indicated significant peer socialization effects for comforting, reporting, and solution‐focused defending. For solution‐focused defending only, the peer socialization effect was significantly stronger for girls than for boys. There were no significant selection effects across defending behaviors. In terms of social outcomes, youth with higher levels of reporting tended to have higher levels of peer victimization (and vice versa). Peer victimization was also positively associated with aggressive defending. Defending behaviors were generally unrelated to changes in friendship ties. Overall, these results highlight how friendships contribute to the development of peer‐defending behaviors and emphasize the need to examine defending as a multidimensional 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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