MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118686184 · doi:10.1080/15564880600626163

Factors Associated With Perceptions and Responses to Bullying Situations by Children, Parents, Teachers, and Principals

2006· article· en· W2118686184 on OpenAlexaff
Faye Mishna, Debra Pepler, Judith Wiener

Bibliographic record

VenueVictims & Offenders · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Christian StudiesYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPerceptionDevelopmental psychologyHuman factors and ergonomicsQualitative researchSuicide preventionSocial psychologyInjury preventionPoison controlClinical psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study provides one of the first assessments of bullying based on the perceptions of victimized children and their parents, teachers, and school administrators. It augments the extensive quantitative research findings already reported in the literature. The qualitative methodology privileges the “lived experience” of study participants. Interviews were conducted with children in grades 4 and 5 who self-identified as having been bullied, their parents, and educators. This study provides evidence to suggest that several factors influence individuals’ perceptions and responses to particular bullying incidents. These factors include whether the incident matches an individual's definition, whether the child “fits” expectations about how victimized children behave and present themselves, and developmental features of bullying and what is considered normal.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations177
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictims & OffendersSame topicBullying, Victimization, and AggressionFrench-language works237,207