An Evaluation of a Bullying Prevention Program for Elementary Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research evaluates an anti-bullying program, Dare to Care: Bully Proofing Your School. Students in Grades 4-6 (N = 197, 77 boys, 120 girls) from four Calgary elementary schools completed the Colorado School Climate Survey (Garrity, Jens, Porter, Sager, & Short-Camilli, 2000) and the Provictim Scale - Short Version (Rigby & Slee, 1991). The first research component was a pretest - 3-month posttest comparison between a school that was about to implement the program and one that was not planning to do so. At pretest, students in the no-program school gave more positive reports on many variables than the school about to implement the program, making the intended across-school statistical comparison unfeasible. Within the 3-month program school, however, the frequency of bullying witnessed by the students significantly decreased, but remained stable in the no-program comparison school. Further, attitudes towards victims significantly worsened in the no-program school, but remained stable in the program school. The second research component compared three schools that had implemented the anti-bullying program for various lengths of time. Students in the schools with the longer program duration reported more positive attitudes towards victims than students in the school with shorter program duration; however, other indicators of program effectiveness were not significantly different. The results raise questions about evaluating anti-bullying programs.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".