MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402037151 · doi:10.1177/02724316241279003

Examining Links Between Motivations for Social Withdrawal, Time Spent Alone, and Indices of Internalizing Problems in Childhood and Early Adolescence

2024· article· en· W4402037151 on OpenAlexaff
Stefania Sette, Matilde Brunetti, Giulia Pecora, Fiorenzo Laghi, Emiddia Longobardi, Robert J. Coplan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Early Adolescence · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersSapienza Università di Roma
KeywordsShynessLonelinessPsychologySocial anxietyAnxietySocial withdrawalSolitudeAssociation (psychology)Developmental psychologyClinical psychologyDepression (economics)PsychiatryPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated links between motivations for social withdrawal, time spent alone, and indices of internalizing difficulties. Participants were 169 ( n = 96 girls) children and early adolescents aged 8–14 years ( M age = 10.82, SD = 1.78). Children completed self-report measures of motivations for social withdrawal (shyness, unsociability), time spent alone, and indices of internalizing difficulties (social anxiety, depression, loneliness), whereas parents provided a broader rating of children’s internalizing symptoms. Among the results, at higher levels of shyness, time spent alone was positively related to social anxiety, but this association was attenuated at lower levels of shyness. Higher levels of unsociability weakened the positive association between time spent alone and loneliness. Time alone was more strongly related to depression for early adolescents. These findings highlight the differential implications of solitude for shy children and early adolescents, who might experience more discomfort and anxiety compared to their more unsociable counterparts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Early AdolescenceSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207