“But Some People Will Not”: Arendtian Interventions in Education
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it