MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387579313 · doi:10.1037/dev0001656

How biology shapes the development of shyness within specific contexts: A longitudinal, cross-lagged investigation.

2023· article· en· W4387579313 on OpenAlexafffund
Raha Hassan, Louis A. Schmidt

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Psychology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityWestern University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAmerican Psychological Foundation
KeywordsShynessPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyVagal toneContext (archaeology)PsycINFOStressorProsocial behaviorSocial environmentAnxietyClinical psychologyHeart rateHeart rate variabilityMEDLINEMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

= 0.38). Cardiac vagal withdrawal during the stranger approach task, but not during the frustration task, at age 3 positively predicted shyness at age 4. Shyness at age 3 did not predict cardiac vagal change in either context at age 4. We also found that changes in RSA measured during the frustration task were stable across time, but changes in RSA measured during the stranger approach task were not stable across time, suggesting a developmental change in physiological regulatory systems to social threat. These results suggest that, although biology may come first in shaping children's behavior, this relation depends critically on the context and the incentives in the child's environment. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 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 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)0.002
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental PsychologySame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207