Predictive relations between peer victimization and academic achievement in Chinese children.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study was to explore longitudinal associations between peer victimization and academic achievement in Chinese children. Participants were N = 805 3rd-grade students (486 boys, 319 girls; M(age) = 9.5 years, SD = 3 months) attending primary schools in Shanghai, People's Republic of China. At Time 1 and Time 2 (2 years later), peers nominated classmates who were victims of peer maltreatment using the Chinese version of the Revised Class Play (Chen, Rubin, & Sun, 1992), and teachers rated students' academic achievement. Among the results, peer victimization was negatively related to academic achievement at both time points. Also, peer victimization and academic achievement displayed considerable stability across the 2 years. Results from cross-lagged hierarchical analyses demonstrated that peer victimization at Grade 3 predicted lower academic achievement at Grade 5. However, academic achievement at Grade 3 was not predictive of peer victimization at Grade 5. These results suggest that peer victimization appears to function more as a precursor rather than a consequence of lower academic achievement. Results are discussed in terms of the cross-cultural similarities in the links between peer maltreatment and academic achievement and their educational implications.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".