Dating Experiences of Bullies in Early Adolescence
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
In this study, 196 young adolescents who reported that they bullied their peers were identified out of a sample of 1,758 students in Grades 5 through 8. After selecting from the total sample a group of nonbullying youth who were matched on gender, school, and grade, a comparison was made of the groups' dating experiences, quality of friend and boyfriend or girlfriend relationships, and acts of physical and social aggression. The results indicated that bullies started dating earlier and engaged in more advanced dyadic dating than comparison adolescents. Bullies were highly relationship oriented, yet their views of their friends and boyfriends or girlfriends were less positive and less equitable than the comparison adolescents. Finally, bullies were more likely to report physical and social aggression with their boyfriends or girlfriends. Although the bullies reported more advanced pubertal development, this factor did not fully account for their dating precocity and negative romantic relationships. The results confirmed our hypotheses that adolescents whose peer relationships are characterized by bullying are at risk in their development of healthy romantic relationships.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.006 | 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