Bibliographic record
Abstract
A paper in this week's BMJ (p 480) reports an association between emotional problems in teenagers and being bullied. Bullying, whether at school or at work, is a fashionable subject. To the tough minded, it's often used as an excuse: a way of shifting the blame for personal failure or unhappiness. To the tender hearted, it's a serious threat to psychological health. Not surprisingly, most websites reflect the latter view. Some, such as www.childline.org.uk/factsheets/bullying1.htm, offer commonsense advice and support. But others seem more concerned with publicising the scale of the problem than with critical appraisal of the evidence. The home page of www.bully.org, for example, leads with a tabloid style headline about a 14 year old Canadian college student who shot two of his classmates after years of relentless peer victimisation. www.applesforhealth.com/bullying1.html makes the scarcely believable claim that 80% of US middle school students admitted to having engaged in bullying in the last two weeks and quotes from William Pollack, author of a book entitled Real Boys, Real Men and Real Depression, who finds that bullies are the most depressed boys he's observed. Well known people confess how they were bullied at school at www.bbc.co.uk/education/archive/bully/celeb.shtml. If you're someone who inclines to the tough minded view, you might change your mind after reading what the industrialist Sir John Harvey Jones, the explorer Ranulph Fiennes, and others not noted for their wimpish outlook have to say. People do not think of themselves as bullies. They tell themselves that they are just being assertive, giving strong leadership, or disinclined to suffer fools gladly. So it might be salutary to visit www.successunlimited.co.uk/bully/serial.htm to check out your management style and make sure that the place where you work really does have an antibullying ethos.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.219 | 0.052 |
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".