MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588525699 · doi:10.5539/jedp.v7n1p200

Methods for Reducing Violence in Schools: A Systematic Review

2017· review· en· W2588525699 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Don R. Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Educational and Developmental Psychology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Discipline and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSchool violencePsychologyAtmosphere (unit)Systematic reviewPublic relationsSocial psychologyPolitical scienceMEDLINEGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This systematic review examines programs designed to reduce school violence. The review indicates the lack of definitive results of previous reviews, addresses the gaps in the existing literature, and supports the need for social workers to play an active role in organizing, promoting, and coordinating violence reduction processes. In addition, the review attempts to clarify the effects of violence reduction processes as they relate to school culture change.Results indicate that programs identified in this systematic review could help to create positive social environments that reduce incidences of violence creating and atmosphere more favorable to learning. Further, identified programs are shown to reduce office referrals, in school suspensions, and out of school suspensions. While these results are notable, it is likely the identified programs are one component of a holistic strategy for changing school culture. Adding other processes could help to sustain a positive social environment over time and reduce incidence of violence, office referrals, and suspensions. Further study is needed to substantiate this hypothesis as this is beyond this study.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.008
Bibliometrics0.0170.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.342
GPT teacher head0.634
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Educational and Developmental PsychologySame topicEducation Discipline and InequalityFrench-language works237,207