Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children who are bullied are often told to `solve the problems themselves'; however, when bullying is repeated over time, it becomes increasingly difficult for victimized children to stop the torment because of their relative lack of power. We examine the ways in which children respond to bullying and their evaluations of the effectiveness of various strategies in reducing their bullying problems. One thousand eight hundred and fifty-two Canadian children and youth, ranging in age from 4- to 19-years-old (mean 12.6, SD 2.4) responded to a web-based questionnaire. Few respondents indicated that they were motivated by public education campaigns or information about bullying. Participants indicated they were motivated to do something to stop bullying by their own need to exert control and be assertive and by their emotional reactions to bullying. A significant group of youth responded that they did nothing to stop bullying. Finally, the longer the bullying had been ongoing, the less effective students perceived their own strategies. The results highlight the importance of adults supporting students. Similarly, it is important to provide children and youth with strategies that are effective, as they are most likely to implement strategies that are only going to increase the victimization over time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".