MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cyber bullying behaviors among middle and high school students.

2010· article· en· W2041751392 on OpenAlexafffund
Faye Mishna, Charlene Cook, Tahany M. Gadalla, Joanne Daciuk, Steven Davidoff Solomon

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Orthopsychiatry · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersBell Canada Enterprises
KeywordsCyber bullyingFeelingPsychosocialPsychologySuicide preventionPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsInjury preventionClinical psychologySocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyThe InternetMedicinePsychiatryMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little research has been conducted that comprehensively examines cyber bullying with a large and diverse sample. The present study examines the prevalence, impact, and differential experience of cyber bullying among a large and diverse sample of middle and high school students (N = 2,186) from a large urban center. The survey examined technology use, cyber bullying behaviors, and the psychosocial impact of bullying and being bullied. About half (49.5%) of students indicated they had been bullied online and 33.7% indicated they had bullied others online. Most bullying was perpetrated by and to friends and participants generally did not tell anyone about the bullying. Participants reported feeling angry, sad, and depressed after being bullied online. Participants bullied others online because it made them feel as though they were funny, popular, and powerful, although many indicated feeling guilty afterward. Greater attention is required to understand and reduce cyber bullying within children's social worlds and with the support of educators and parents.

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)0.002
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations431
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of OrthopsychiatrySame topicBullying, Victimization, and AggressionFrench-language works237,207