Newfoundland and Labrador guidance counsllors' strategies for handling bullying
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine how guidance counsellors in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador would handle a specific verbal-relational bullying incident (i.e., analyzed through five composite scales: ignore the incident, work with the bully, work with the victim, enlist other adults, discipline the bully). Also of interest in this study were participant demographics, bullying programs and Positive Behaviour Supports. -- Bullying can be understood from a dynamic systems perspective where bullying occurs in the context of larger social systems, namely the home, community, and school. The current study focused on the school environment and in particular how guidance counsellors would handle a specific bullying scenario. -- The data for this study was collected using a published questionnaire entitled the “Handling Bullying Questionnaire” developed by Bauman, Rigby and Hoppa (2008). Demographic data such as age, sex, school population and years of experience were also collected. Ninety-four guidance counsellors in this province provided the data discussed in the following chapters. Data was analyzed using simper inferential statistics and descriptive statistics Results and study implications are discussed along with implications for guidance counsellors.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".