MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281873990 · doi:10.1080/00221325.2022.2081786

Young Argentine Children’s Attributions about Hypothetical Socially Withdrawn Peers

2022· article· en· W4281873990 on OpenAlexaff
Karen Noel Castillo, Carolina Greco, Celina Korzeniowski, Mirta Susana Ison, Robert J. Coplan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Genetic Psychology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
KeywordsAttributionPsychologySympathyIntentionalityDevelopmental psychologyPreferenceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study assessed young children’s attributions about different subtypes of hypothetical socially withdrawn peers. Participants were N = 114 (56% boys, Mage= 60.53 months, SD = 7.58) children attending urban public kindergartens in Mendoza, Argentina. Children were presented with vignettes describing hypothetical shy, unsociable, aggressive, and socially competent peers, and were asked a series of questions to assess their attributions toward each behavior. The results indicated that Argentine children characterized hypothetical unsociable peers as behaving with greater intentionality and lesser social motivations than shy children. No differences were found between the unsociable and shy hypothetical peers regarding the attributions of sympathy, affiliative preference, negative impact and social standing in the class. These findings provide some of the first evidence about Argentine children understanding of social withdrawal. Results are discussed in terms of the possible cultural meanings and implications of these behaviors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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