Understanding How Resiliency Development Influences Adolescent Bullying and Victimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the self-report Youth Resiliency: Assessing Development Strengths (YR:ADS) questionnaire is used with adolescents from seven junior and senior high schools (N = 2,991) to investigate the function of resiliency profiles as a model for understanding why adolescents engage in bullying and acts of aggression and how having these developmental strengths reduces victimization. In support of a protective-protective model of resiliency, the linear relationship with each behaviour indicator shows that the interactive risk and outcome relationship decreases with each strength or resiliency factor present. These results suggest that adolescents with positive situational and internal factors in their daily lives are inclined to lead prosocial or constructive lifestyles. The ability to negotiate risk or engagement in at-risk behaviours needs to shift the future research from simply identifying protective factors, to an understanding of how the development of resiliency processes allow some individuals to cope more effectively than others.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".