Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Bullying is a complex relationship problem associated with many psychosocial difficulties for children who bully, as well as those who are victimized. A recent international volume of school-based bullying programs revealed modest effectiveness, highlighting the need to refine interventions using research on developmental profiles of children who bully and those who are victimized, as well as on their relationships. METHOD: Based on developmental-systemic theory, a research review was conducted on individual and relationship risk factors associated with bullying and being victimized. RESULTS: The review led to the proposal of two organizing principles for interventions: Scaffolding and Social Architecture. Scaffolding focuses on providing tailored and dynamic supports for the needs of individual children who bully or who are victimized. Social architecture requires that adults focus on the social dynamics of children's groups and create social contexts that promote positive peer interactions and dissipate contexts that foster negative interactions. CONCLUSION: Interventions for bullying require a combination of scaffolding and social architecture to provide comprehensive supports and to change the social dynamics that enable bullying. With an empirically derived, comprehensive perspective, we may move closer to reducing the burden of these relationship problems in the lives of children and youth.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".