Aggressive boys' attributions of emotions and intentions in social situations.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared aggressive and non-aggressive boys' attributions of emotions and intentions in social situations. Forty males aged 9--12 years of age participated in this study. The aggressive group (n = 20) was referred from three different children's mental health centers. The non-aggressive group (n = 20) consisted of boys recruited from the community. Participant's parents completed two measures assessing behaviour problems in childhood. Participants were presented with 12 vignettes in which one child was involved in behaviour, which resulted in a negative outcome for another child. For half of the stories participants were asked to imagine themselves as the story victim and for the other half they were asked to imagine themselves as the story victimizer. Participants were then questioned regarding the characters' intentions and emotions. In addition participants were administered tasks assessing intelligence and a self-report assessing behaviour problems. Results revealed differences between groups with respect to their intent attributions when they were asked to imagine themselves as the story victimizer. With respect to emotion attributions, compared to non-aggressive boys, aggressive boys were less likely to attribute mixed emotions to story victimizers. Although non-aggressive participants attributed both inappropriate and appropriate emotions simultaneously to story victimizers, aggressive participants attributed either inappropriate or appropriate emotions. Results are discussed in terms of their implications for social and emotional information processing research.Dept. of Psychology. Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis2003 .M36. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 42-02, page: 0692. Adviser: Rosanne Menna. Thesis (M.A.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 2003.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".