Developmental Progression of Perceived Gender Similarity in Early Adolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to examine the developmental progression of gender similarity, an important aspect of gender identity, in early adolescence. At 11 ( M age = 11.01) and 14 years of age ( M age = 14.00), 156 youths (77 girls, 76 boys, 2 transgender boys, 1 gender fluid participant) reported on their perceived own-gender and other-gender similarity levels. Latent change score models suggested that mean levels of own-gender similarity remained stable over time while mean levels of other-gender similarity decreased. No gender differences were found in these mean-level trends. Using autoregressive cross-lagged models to investigate individual differences, a cross-over effect emerged for both gender groups, wherein other-gender similarity at age 11 negatively predicted own-gender similarity at age 14 (controlling for baseline levels of own-gender similarity). These results suggest that both perceived own-gender and other-gender similarity should be assessed when examining gender similarity in early adolescence, as these two subdimensions follow distinct developmental patterns.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".