Parental and school bonding in Iranian adolescent perpetrators and victims of bullying
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared parental and school bonding in adolescents in Iran who are perpetrators of bullying, victims of bullying and not-involved in bullying. Secondary school students ( N = 240) were selected by cluster random sampling and screening, and categorized as perpetrators of bullying ( N = 80), victims of bullying ( N = 80) and non-involved ( N = 80) by teacher and vice-principal nominations. The Parental Bonding Instrument and the School Bonding Scales were completed by the students. With some exceptions (i.e., no between-group differences in maternal overprotectiveness and boys reported higher levels of school involvement than girls), results suggest similar patterns in Iran as in Western societies. With regard to parental bonding, perpetrators of bullying reported lower levels of maternal and paternal care than victims of bullying and non-involved students, higher levels of paternal overprotectiveness than non-involved students, higher levels of paternal authoritarianism (or lower levels of autonomy) than victims and non-involved students, and higher levels of maternal authoritarianism than victims. For school bonding, perpetrators of bullying reported lower levels of school and teacher attachment than the other two groups and victims reported lower levels of school and teacher attachment than non-involved students. Implications for school psychologists 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".