MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028897941 · doi:10.15353/cjds.v3i1.146

“I don’t think I get bullied because I am different or because I have autism”: Bullying Experiences Among Middle Years Children with Disabilities and Other Differences

2014· article· en· W2028897941 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Amanda Ajodhia-Andrews

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Disability Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActive listeningPsychologyNarrativeEthnic groupAutismDevelopmental psychologyCitizen journalismParticipatory action researchSociologyPsychotherapistLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores conceptualizations and experiences of bullying and victimization from the perspectives of 6 Canadian children (ages 10-13) with intersecting differences of race, ethnicity, language, and disability. Utilizing narrative and critical discourse analysis designs, alongside multi-method data collection approaches with creative participatory techniques, participants shared bullying experiences and theirre influence on school belonging. Participants highlighted (a) characteristics of bullies; (b) physical, verbal, social/relational aggressive experiences; (c) various strategies for managing bullying occurrences; and (d) notions of difference and victimization. This paper speaks to the importance of listening to the voices of children from traditionally oppressed groups, particularly those with autism and other disabilities, as their insights expand traditional understandings of categories of normalcy and difference within school spaces.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0170.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Disability StudiesSame topicBullying, Victimization, and AggressionFrench-language works237,207