MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2195048691 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009084

Protocol for the design of an instrument to measure preadolescent children's self-report of covert aggression and bullying

2015· article· en· W2195048691 on OpenAlexaff
Helen Nelson, Garth Kendall, Sharyn Burns, Kimberly A. Schonert‐Reichl

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaImpact
FundersCurtin University of TechnologyHealthway
KeywordsCovertDiscriminant validityFace validityApplied psychologyAggressionPoison controlPsychologyContent validityMedicinePsychological interventionMedical educationClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychometricsInternal consistencyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Covert bullying in schools is associated with a range of academic, social, emotional and physical health problems. Much research has focused on bullying, but there remains a gap in understanding about covert aggression and how to most accurately and reliably measure children's own reports of this behaviour. This paper reviews relevant literature and outlines a research project that aims to develop a self-report instrument that effectively measures covert aggression and bullying. It is anticipated that this research will result in a standardised instrument that is suitable for exploring preadolescent children's experiences of covert aggressive behaviour. The data collected by the instrument will enhance health and education professionals understanding of covert bullying behaviours and will inform the design and evaluation of interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Relational developmental systems theory will guide the design of an online self-report instrument. The first phase of the project will include a critical review of the research literature, focus groups with children aged 8-12 years (grades 4-6) in Perth, Western Australia, and expert review. The instrument will be explored for content and face validity prior to the assessment of convergent and discriminant validity, internal consistency and test-retest reliability. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Curtin University of Human Research Ethics Committee (RDHS-38-15) and by the Executive Principal of the participating 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.060
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0600.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0050.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1380.036

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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicBullying, Victimization, and AggressionFrench-language works237,207