Emotion dynamics among preadolescents getting to know each other: Dyadic associations with shyness.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
= 10.13 years, 75.8% White) were observed during an unstructured "getting to know you" task. Children's shyness was assessed through parent- and child-report. Using grid-sequence analysis (Brinberg et al., 2017) we identified three dyadic emotion clusters: Flexible and Shared Positive Affect (60%), Flexible and Shared Neutral Affect (35%), and Stable and Shared Negative Affect (17%). Children in the Stable and Shared Negative Affect cluster were rated higher in shyness relative to children in the Flexible and Shared Positive Affect cluster. Further, children more similar in shyness to their dyadic partner displayed more stable negative and neutral affect expressions than children who differed in shyness from their partner. Together, these findings suggest that shyness is related to less positive and less flexible emotion expressions when meeting a new peer, holding critical implications for friendship initiation among children varying in shyness. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".