Collaborative responses to cyberbullying: preventing and responding to cyberbullying through nodes and clusters
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: QualitativeConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.608
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 1.000
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
The distributed nature of cyberspace requires that security issues be addressed within plural policing environments in which public and private actors work together to form a security quilt. Cyberbullying is increasingly recognised as a serious social concern and a legitimate security threat that affects a large number of young people in cyberspace. Drawing on nodal governance theory, this article uses data from in-depth qualitative interviews with 34 members of the parent, educational system and law enforcement nodal clusters to explore adults' responses to cyberbullying. In particular, I examine the types of capital possessed by each cluster, their position within the cyberbullying security network, how they achieve security and limitations experienced by each cluster. The parent cluster was identified as central to the security network, whereas the educational system occupies a secondary position and the law enforcement cluster serves primarily as a knowledge broker. Each cluster is limited by a lack of familiarity and a comfort with cyberspace and electronic communications. An examination of internodal relations revealed several gaps in the security network and a number of structural and cultural variables that limit the network's security potential.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Policing & Society
- Topic
- Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
- Field
- Psychology
- Canadian institutions
- Western University
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- CyberspaceLaw enforcementComputer securityCorporate governanceInternet privacyPosition (finance)Public relationsBusinessSociologyPolitical scienceThe InternetComputer scienceLawWorld Wide Web
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes