Predicting cyberbullying perpetration in emerging adults: A theoretical test of the Barlett Gentile Cyberbullying Model
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
The Barlett and Gentile Cyberbullying Model (BGCM) is a learning-based theory that posits the importance of positive cyberbullying attitudes predicting subsequent cyberbullying perpetration. Furthermore, the tenants of the BGCM state that cyberbullying attitude are likely to form when the online aggressor believes that the online environment allows individuals of all physical sizes to harm others and they are perceived as anonymous. Past work has tested parts of the BGCM; no study has used longitudinal methods to examine this model fully. The current study (N = 161) employed a three-wave longitudinal design to test the BGCM. Participants (age range: 18-24) completed measures of the belief that physical strength is irrelevant online and anonymity perceptions at Wave 1, cyberbullying attitudes at Wave 2, and cyberbullying perpetration at Wave 3. Results showed strong support for the BGCM: anonymity perceptions and the belief that physical attributes are irrelevant online at Wave 1 predicted Wave 2 cyberbullying attitudes, which predicted subsequent Wave 3 cyberbullying perpetration. These results support the BGCM and are the first to show empirical support for this model. Aggr. Behav. 43:147-154, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it