Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recent study of the effects of peer involvement in bullying among elementary school children in Toronto reached the disturbing but not surprising conclusion that the behavior of children observing incidents of bullying tends to reinforce bullying. 1he researchers' analysis of fifty-three videotaped incidents of bullying indicates that most the time, peer behavior contributed to the bullying, either actively, by cheering on the bully or modeling his aggressive behavior, or passively, by the inaction of those who stood by, "attending to the episode and not helping the victim." 2 On average, onlookers spent only twenty five percent of their time actively intervening in the incident on behalf of the victims of bullying.According to the companion questionnaire filled out by students at the school, "forty one percent of students indicated that they 'try to help' the victim when they observe bullying." 3This study shows otherwise, marking a shift in focus of efforts to reduce bullying in the playground from a preoccupation with the psychological dimensions of the bully-victim dyad to a broader understanding of the immediate social context within which bullying takes place.Rather than viewing peer inaction as a peripheral matter in the problem of bullying, the researchers suggest that it plays a pivotal role in the dynamics of playground aggression and victimization.Effective intervention in bullying, the researchers suggest, is best achieved by raising peer awareness of the ways in which their unwillingness to intervene on behalf of the victim contributes to a climate of bullying.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".