Friendship and bullying patterns in children attending a language base in a mainstream school
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study involved perceptions of bullying in six Year 7 children attending a speech and language base part‐time and the perceptions of their mainstream peers without speech and language problems. Base‐taught children and mainstreamed peers completed a bullying questionnaire and a social inclusion survey. Base‐taught children with language difficulties rated themselves three times more likely to be bullied than mainstream peers. Half of these base children, however, rated bullying as rare. These two sub‐groups differed on the number of peers willing to "hang out" with them, suggesting language difficulties and attendance at a segregated language base together are a "risk factor" for bullying whereas peer‐acceptance may be a "protecting factor". An intervention helping children to use a "fogging" technique did not reduce bullying perceptions. It is suggested that inclusion‐oriented ecological interventions are more likely to encourage friendships and social acceptance among the wider peer group and thus may be the most effective interventions to prevent bullying. Notes * 3700 McTavish Street, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 1Y2. Email: Robert.savage@mcgill.ca Additional informationNotes on contributorsRobert Savage Footnote* * 3700 McTavish Street, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 1Y2. Email: Robert.savage@mcgill.ca
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".