A Study of the Dynamic Between Victims and Teachers: How Teachers Can Support Students Who Are Bullied
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this qualitative research study was to investigate the main research question posed: How is a sample of elementary teachers providing one-on-one support to students who are bullied? Data was collected from two Ontario certified teachers, by using semi- structured interviews. The data was analyzed and interpreted, which allowed three main themes to emerge: Teachers acknowledge that how they support students who are bullied is influenced by how they themselves define bullying, recognize it and what it means to them; teachers recognize the importance of implementing different strategies and approaches in the classroom in order to prevent bullying incents; and teachers recognize the need for victims of bullying to be supported through a variety of strategies. I explain the implications of my research findings for the educational community and myself, as a researcher and teacher. The findings inform school boards, principals and teachers about anti-bullying initiatives, which can be implemented in order to help support victims of bullying.
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 | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".