MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020449983 · doi:10.1177/0829573513491212

Cyberbullying

2013· article· en· W2020449983 on OpenAlexaffabout
M. Catherine Cappadocia, Wendy Craig, Debra Pepler

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of School Psychology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenQueen's UniversityYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyProsocial behaviorLongitudinal studyDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyDepression (economics)Human factors and ergonomicsSuicide preventionInjury preventionPoison controlOccupational safety and healthMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although research on cyberbullying has recently begun to emerge, few researchers have used longitudinal data to explore this phenomenon in Canada. Using 1-year longitudinal data from the Health Behavior in School-Aged Children Study conducted by the World Health Organization, we investigated the prevalence and stability and risk factors associated with cyberbullying, cybervictimization, and simultaneous cyberbullying and cybervictimization among 1,972 adolescents. Risk factors associated with cyberbullying included higher levels of antisocial behaviors and fewer prosocial peer influences. Risk factors associated with cybervictimization included being in the transition year for high school, as well as higher levels of traditional victimization and depression. Higher levels of traditional victimization were also associated with simultaneous cyberbullying and cybervictimization. Gender differences and implications of the findings are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations183
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of School PsychologySame topicBullying, Victimization, and AggressionFrench-language works237,207