Bidirectional Relationships Between Peer Defending and Social Status in Elementary and High School Students
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This study evaluated the bidirectional associations between peer defending and social status (perceived popularity and likability) as well as gender and grade differences in these associations. Cross‐lagged panel models were used to assess these longitudinal relationships in a sample comprised of elementary school students (Grades 5–8, N = 301, M age = 12.38, collected in May and November 2019) and high school students (Grades 9–12, N = 296, M age = 15.69, collected in November 2022 and May 2023) collected from five schools in southern Ontario, Canada. Findings revealed that overall, popularity and likability predicted future peer defending, and students who defended others became more liked over time. Additionally, our exploratory analyses indicated that boys in elementary school who defended became more popular overtime. These findings extend previous investigations into the bidirectional associations between social status and peer defending, while considering the impacts of gender and cohort. Implications of these findings are discussed in terms of their novelty and considerations for bullying prevention programs.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it