Observations of Bullying in the Playground and in the Classroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study employed naturalistic observations to compare bullying and victimization in the playground and in the classroom. The results indicated that there were more opportunities to observe aggression and receive and initiate aggression in the playground than in the classroom. The frequency of bullying was higher in the playground (4.5 episodes per hour) than in the classroom (2.4 episodes per hour). The nature of bullying reflected the constraints of the context (i.e. direct bullying was more prevalent in the playground and indirect bullying was more prevalent in the classroom). Being at the receiving end of aggression was more likely to occur in the playground as compared to the classroom. Nonaggressive children were more likely to bully in the playground, whereas aggressive children were more likely to bully in the classroom. There was no difference across context in the proportion of episodes of reinforcement with peers present or in the rate of peer and teacher intervention. The results highlight the necessity of a systemic intervention programme that addresses not only the individual characteristics of bullies and victims, but also the roles of the peer group, teachers and the school.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".