MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136199930 · doi:10.1177/0143034312446976

Evidence for the need to support adolescents dealing with harassment and cyber-harassment: Prevalence, progression, and impact

2012· article· en· W2136199930 on OpenAlex
Tanya Beran, Christina M. Rinaldi, David S. Bickham, Michael Rich

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSchool Psychology International · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarassmentLogistic regressionPsychologyMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of harassment in high school and into university, and the impact of one particular form of harassment: cyber-harassment. Participants were 1,368 students at one US and two Canadian universities (mean age = 21.1 years, 676 female students). They responded on five-point scales to questions about the frequency and impact of harassment. A total of 33.6% of students stated they had been cyber-harassed and 28.4% had been harassed off-line when in high school. Also, 8.6% were cyber-harassed and 6.4% were harassed off-line while in university. Hierarchical logistic regression analyses show that the type of harassment experienced in high school is associated with the type of harassment experienced in university. Various negative outcomes of cyber-harassment were also identified.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.377 · 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