Peer to peer sexual harassment in early adolescence: A developmental perspective
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study was to examine sexual harassment in early adolescence. Available data indicate that peer to peer sexual harassment is prevalent in high school and is associated with psychosocial problems for both victims and perpetrators. For the present study, we adopted a developmental contextual model to examine the possibility that this behavior develops during the late elementary and middle school years and is linked to the biological and social changes that occur at this time. Youths from Grades 6-8 (N = 1,213) enrolled in seven elementary and middle schools in a large south-central Canadian city were asked to report on their sexual harassment behaviors with same- and cross-gender peers; their pubertal development, and the gender composition of their peer network. The results revealed that cross-gender harassment was distinct from same-gender harassment, increased in frequency from Grade 6 to Grade 8, and was linked to pubertal maturation and participation in mixed-gender peer groups. The implications of a developmental contextual model for understanding the emergence of this problematic behavior in adolescence are discussed.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it