MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417436285 · doi:10.1080/07448481.2025.2593301

Exploring the relationship between kindness and resilience among gender diverse versus cisgender youth: the BRAVE study

2025· article· en· W4417436285 on OpenAlexafffund
Katie J. Shillington, Jennifer D. Irwin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of American College Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityWilfrid Laurier University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsKindnessPsychological resilienceDemographicsResilience (materials science)Mental healthYoung adultPositive correlation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: This study compared giving kindness, receiving kindness, self-kindness, and resilience between gender diverse (GD) and cisgender youth, and investigated the correlation between kindness (giving, receiving, self) and resilience among GD youth specifically. Methods: A total of 488 youth (93% college/university students; n = 69 GD; n = 419 cisgender) completed a survey that included demographics and scales to measure giving kindness, receiving kindness, self-kindness, and resilience. Results: Results from chi-square tests of independence indicated an association between gender and self-kindness, and gender and resilience. Results from Pearson’s correlation showed a positive correlation between resilience and self-kindness in GD youth. Conclusions: Given that GD youth were more likely to have moderate levels of self-kindness and low levels of resilience compared to cisgender youth and that self-kindness and resilience were positively correlated, researchers may wish to focus on providing GD youth with self-kindness resources which could, in turn, lead to increases in resilience.

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.286
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.163 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of American College HealthSame topicResilience and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207