MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127547578 · doi:10.1177/0829573514556853

The Nature and Frequency of Cyber Bullying Behaviors and Victimization Experiences in Young Canadian Children

2014· article· en· W2127547578 on OpenAlexaffabout
Brett Holfeld, Bonnie J. Leadbeater

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of School Psychology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCyber bullyingSuicide preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsInjury preventionPoison controlDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyThe InternetMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As access to technology is increasing in children and adolescents, there are growing concerns over the dangers of cyber bullying. It remains unclear what cyber bullying looks like among young Canadian children and how common these experiences are. In this study, we examine the psychometric properties of a measure of cyber bullying behaviors and victimization experiences. We also examine the frequency of these behaviors and experiences among fifth- and sixth-grade Canadian children at the beginning ( n = 714) and end ( n = 638) of a school year. Children’s cyber bullying behaviors and victimization experiences were relatively stable across the school year and were highest for sixth-grade students who reported greater access to and use of technology. Cyber bullying behaviors representing joking around were endorsed more frequently than aggressive types of behaviors (i.e., spreading rumours or posting embarrassing pictures online). Implications for school-based prevention efforts 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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations67
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of School PsychologySame topicBullying, Victimization, and AggressionFrench-language works237,207