MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101055297 · doi:10.2190/ec.46.4.f

“Making Kind Cool”: Parents' Suggestions for Preventing Cyber Bullying and Fostering Cyber Kindness

2012· article· en· W2101055297 on OpenAlexaffabout
Wanda Cassidy, Karen Brown, Margaret Jackson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Educational Computing Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Development and Digital Technology
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKindnessPsychologyCyber bullyingCurriculumPunishment (psychology)Social psychologySocial mediaTheme (computing)PedagogyThe InternetComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cyber bullying among youth is rapidly becoming a global phenomenon, as educators, parents and policymakers grapple with trying to curtail this negative and sometimes devastating behavior. Since most cyber bullying emanates from the home computer, parents can play an important role in preventing cyber bullying and in fostering a kinder online world, or what might be termed “cyber kindness.” In this study, we examine parents' knowledge of social networking technology, their level of concern with cyber bullying, their experiences with cyber bullying, and their ideas for preventing cyber bullying and promoting cyber kindness. Three hundred and fifteen parents from three schools in British Columbia, Canada completed a questionnaire, primarily involving open-ended, written responses. We found that parents are not very familiar with the newer forms of online social networking, such as Facebook, blogs, and chat rooms. Further, they are not overly concerned about the problem of cyber bullying, nor are they aware of the extent of cyber bullying among their children. Although a minority of parents looked to stricter controls over technology and more stringent punishment as the solution, most parents thought a more effective way, in the long-term, was for adults in the home and school to model the right behavior, provide opportunities to dialogue with youth, and develop school curricula on this theme. The results demonstrate the need for collaboration among students, parents, and educators.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.218
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations82
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Educational Computing ResearchSame topicChild Development and Digital TechnologyFrench-language works237,207