MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2553908194 · doi:10.1177/1059840516679709

A Scoping Review of Self-Report Measures of Aggression and Bullying for Use With Preadolescent Children

2016· review· en· W2553908194 on OpenAlexaff
Helen Nelson, Garth Kendall, Sharyn Burns, Kimberly A. Schonert‐Reichl

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of School Nursing · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersHealthway
KeywordsAggressionPsychologyPsychological interventionSuicide preventionPoison controlInjury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsClinical psychologyOccupational safety and healthMental healthDevelopmental psychologyApplied psychologyMedicinePsychiatryMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bullying in schools is a major health concern throughout the world, contributing to poor educational and mental health outcomes. School nurses are well placed to facilitate the implementation and evaluation of bullying prevention strategies. To evaluate the effect of such strategies, it is necessary to measure children's behavior over time. This scoping review of instruments that measure the self-report of aggressive behavior and bullying by children will inform the evaluation of bullying interventions. This review aimed to identify validated instruments that measure aggression and bullying among preadolescent children (age 8-12). The review was part of a larger study that sought to differentiate bullying from aggressive behavior by measuring the self-report of power imbalance between the aggressor and the child being bullied. The measurement of power imbalance was therefore a key aspect of the scoping review.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0200.019
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.312 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of School NursingSame topicBullying, Victimization, and AggressionFrench-language works237,207