A Mixed-Method Evaluation of a Strength-Based Bullying Prevention Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study was to describe the strength-based bullying prevention program, Strengths in Motion, and to evaluate the program utilizing a mixed-method design. Participants included students in Grades 4 to 8 from an intervention ( n = 50) and a comparison ( n = 53) school in Northern Ontario. Measures of bullying, strengths, and classroom climate were completed at three time points: One month prior to the start of the program (baseline), and at 3 and 8 months after the program had started. Quantitative analyses revealed that there was a significant decrease in students’ bullying victimization over time, an increase in classroom climate, and students’ personal awareness of their strengths. Semistructured interviews conducted 20 months after the start of the program with various stakeholders, including parents and school staff, complemented these findings and provided additional information on the efficacy of the program and the strength-based approach. Study findings are discussed in terms of the implications for future research.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".