MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7011498444

Moderators of the relationship between peer influence and physical risk-taking decisions in childhood

2008· dissertation· en· W7011498444 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Atrium (University of Guelph) · 2008
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical and Chemical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonalityFriendshipContext (archaeology)Peer groupTask (project management)Human factors and ergonomicsBig Five personality traitsPoison control
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Canada, unintentional injury is the leading cause of death beyond age one, and a leading cause of hospitalization for children. For school-age children, injuries often occur when children are unsupervised and with peers. The present study addresses how personality attributes interact with relational context to predict peer influences on risk taking decisions at these ages. Participants engaged in a physical risk taking task (i.e., balance beam) before and after a peer influence manipulation (i.e., peer engaged in greater risk-taking than the target child). Results revealed that children high on the personality attribute 'need for approval' were more easily influenced toward risk taking but only when indices of friendship quality were high. Additionally, threat appraisals (severity and vulnerability) showed reductions, from pre- to post-influence, that were predictive of peer influenced risk taking decisions. The results suggest the importance of examining childhood risk-taking within both relational and social-situational contexts.

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)0.005
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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.260 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Atrium (University of Guelph)Same topicBiomedical and Chemical ResearchFrench-language works237,207