MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361011238 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1134826

The moderating role of spirituality and gender in Canadian and Iranian emerging adolescents’ theory of mind and prosocial behavior

2023· article· en· W4361011238 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Nadia Khalili, Sandra Bosacki, Victoria Talwar

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityMcGill University
FundersBrock UniversitySocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsProsocial behaviorPsychologySpiritualityTheory of mindSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction While research has found a link between ToM and prosociality in terms of caring and helping others which may also vary across cultures, the moderating role of spirituality and culture of this association in emerging adolescence has received little attention. Methods The current study empirically “examined” the role of spirituality and gender in relation to ToM and prosocial behavior in Canadian and Iranian emerging adolescents. A total of 300 (153 girls) emerging adolescents (M = 11.502, SD = 2.228) were recruited from Montreal, Canada and Karaj, Iran. A series of double moderation analysis and ANOVA was conducted. Results and discussion Results indicated the difference between direct and indirect influences of ToM and its interactions with culture, gender, and spirituality on prosocial behavior. This implies an emerging complex framework which suggests the dynamic nonlinear interactions between these factors. Implications for youth’s social-emotional understanding will be discussed.

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)0.003
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 score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.324 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207