Bullying: Are researchers and children/youth talking about the same thing?
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
Given the rapid increase in studies of bullying and peer harassment among youth, it becomes important to understand just what is being researched. This study explored whether the themes that emerged from children's definitions of bullying were consistent with theoretical and methodological operationalizations within the research literature, and whether the provision of a definition when administering bullying experience items would lead to different prevalence rates in reported victimization and bullying. Students aged 8—18 ( N = 1767) were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. In the first condition, students were provided with a standard bullying definition; in the second condition, students provided their own definition of bullying. Results indicated that students' definitions of bullying rarely included the three prominent definitional criteria typically endorsed by researchers: intentionality (1.7%), repetition (6%), and power imbalance (26%), although almost all students (92%) did emphasize negative behaviors in their definition. Younger children made more mention of physical aggression, general harassing behaviors, and verbal aggression in their definitions, whereas the theme of relational aggression was most prominent in the middle years and reported more by girls than boys. Finally, students who were given a definition of bullying reported being victimized less than students not provided with a definition. As well, boys who were given a definition of bullying tended to report higher levels of bullying than those not given a definition (marginal effect).
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