School functioning in early adolescence: Gender-linked responses to peer victimization.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research indicates that peer victimization contributes to poor school functioning in childhood and adolescence, yet the processes by which victimization interferes with school functioning are unclear. This study examined internalizing and externalizing problems as domain-specific mediators of the association between subtypes of peer victimization (relational, physical) and school functioning (engagement, achievement) with a cross-sectional sample of 337 early adolescents. School engagement was examined further as a proximal process that intervenes in the associations between internalizing and externalizing problems and achievement. Gender differences in these associations were assessed. As expected, internalizing problems showed stronger links with relational than with physical victimization and partially mediated the influence of both on engagement for girls but not boys. Externalizing problems partially mediated the influence of both subtypes of victimization on school functioning for girls and physical victimization for boys. Notably, engagement was a robust mediator of the contributions of internalizing problems and physical victimization to achievement for girls and externalizing problems to achievement for girls and boys. Findings also suggest that physical (but not relational) victimization partially mediates the link between internalizing and externalizing problems and school functioning.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".