Participant Roles in Bullying Among Dutch Adolescents With Autism Spectrum Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated whether participant roles (i.e., bully, assistant, follower, defender, outsider, victim) identified in bullying among normative groups of adolescents educated in regular education could also be found among adolescents with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) educated in special education classrooms. Relationships between the participant roles and three social status measures (social preference, social impact, and popularity) were also examined. There were 260 Dutch adolescents with ASD, ages 12-18 (M = 13.75, SD = 1.42; 224 boys, 36 girls), and 743 Dutch typically developing (TD) adolescents, ages 11-17 (M = 13.41, SD = 1.24; 380 boys, 363 girls) who filled out questionnaires during classroom testing sessions conducted by the first author and trained (under)graduate students. Participant roles could be distinguished, although role distributions differed across groups and across sexes. There were more outsiders and defenders, and fewer followers among boys with ASD than among TD boys. Among girls with ASD, there were more victims than among TD girls. Students with ASD could more often be assigned multiple roles and were less often uninvolved than TD students. The relationships between participant roles and social status measures also differed across groups and across sexes. Whereas bullying is considered a universal social phenomenon, the existence of participant roles in bullying situations might be considered universal, as well. Apparently, the social difficulties of students with ASD do not seem to prevent them from taking on various participant roles in bullying situations. Additional practical implications are discussed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".