Exploring the relationship between kindness and resilience among gender diverse versus cisgender youth: the BRAVE study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".