MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

What Protects Rejected Adolescents From Also Being Bullied by Their Peers? The Moderating Role of Peer‐Valued Characteristics

2012· article· en· W2111641209 on OpenAlex
Jennifer M. Knack, Vasilinka Tsar, Tracy Vaillancourt, Shelley Hymel, Patricia McDougall

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research on Adolescence · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttractivenessPsychologyPeer victimizationCompetence (human resources)Peer acceptanceDevelopmental psychologyPath analysis (statistics)Social psychologyPeer groupHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adolescents rejected by peers are often targets of bullying. However, peer rejection is not a sure path to victimization. We examined whether characteristics valued by peers (i.e., attractiveness, wealth, academic, and athletic ability) moderated the relationship between peer rejection and victimization. We predicted rejected adolescents high on peer‐valued characteristics ( PVC s) would receive fewer nominations for being victimized than adolescents with lower levels. C anadian students in G rades 6–10 ( N = 549; M age = 13.32, SD = 1.50) provided peer nominations for peer victimization, rejection, attractiveness, wealth, and academic and athletic competence. As hypothesized, each PVC moderated the relationship between peer rejection and peer victimization. No sex differences were found. This study demonstrates the buffering effects of nonbehavioral characteristics valued by peers.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.348
Threshold uncertainty score0.741

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.316 · 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