Countering School Bullying: An Examination of Policy Implementation in Ontario and Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The incidence of extreme school violence as a direct consequence of bullying among peers, exacerbated by vast media attention, has caused educational institutions worldwide to review issues of bullying intervention and prevention. Many Canadian provinces have implemented guiding principles to counter bullying in schools. This study focuses on a review and comparison of two provincewide antibullying incentives in Ontario and in Saskatchewan through a content analysis of their respective school board or school division policies. An itemized list of beneficial practices for bullying intervention and prevention originated from the scoring scheme of Smith, Smith, Osborn, and Samara (2008) and was adapted by linking research-based program elements that have been found to be effective in reducing school bullying to a content analysis of both provincial frameworks. The final scoring scheme comprised a total of 39 criterions, divided into five categories: Defining Bullying Behaviors, Establishing a Positive School Climate, Disseminating, Monitoring and Reviewing Policy, Reporting and Responding to Bullying, and Involving the Broader Community. Results showed that policies contained a total average of 60 percent of the criterions in Ontario, and 59 percent in Saskatchewan. The conclusion of this study observes from policy lenses key essentials of bullying intervention and prevention initiatives in elementary and secondary educational settings. Recommendations are proposed to bridge the gap between areas that have received extensive attention and areas that have received less treatment in bullying intervention and prevention endeavors, using the content of Ontario and Saskatchewan policies as a basis for discussion.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".